T H E 
 
 Socmian Controverfy 
 
 D I S C U S S'D, 
 
 In S I X 
 
 DIALOGUES. 
 
 Wherein the Chief of the 
 
 SOCINIAN TRACTS 
 
 PubliiH'd of late Years, are Confider'd. 
 
 To which is added, 
 
 A DEFENCE of the Firftand Lad DIALOGUES 
 relating to the Satisfadtion of JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 The War A Was God, i John i. 
 
 The Word was made F/efo, ver. 14.. 
 
 The Lord is that Spirit, ^ Cor. iii. 17. 
 
 Baptizing in the Name of the Father, and cf the Son, and of the 
 
 Gkoft, Matth. xxviii. 19. 
 And thefe Three are One, i John, v. 7. 
 
 LESLIE, Chancellor of the 
 Cathedral of CONNOR. 
 
 The SECOND EDITION. 
 
 L N D N: 
 
 Piinted for G. STRAHAN, at the Golden Ball over againft the 
 Royal-Exchange in CorrihilL 1719.
 
 Books Printed for GEORGE STRAHAN Book- 
 feller, at the Golden-Ball, over againft the 
 Royal Exchange in CornhiU. 
 
 J o 
 
 \ \ View of the Times, their Principles and Practices : In the 
 jf"\. Four Volumes of Rehearfals.- By Philalathes. With a 
 Preface and Index to .each Volume. 
 
 The Hiflory of Sin and Herefy, attempted from the Firft War 
 that they raifed in Heaven, through their various SucceiTes and 
 Progrefs upon Earth, to the final Victory over them, and Condem- 
 nation in HelL 
 
 The New Aflbciation of thofe call' d Moderate Church-men, with 
 the Modern Whigs and Favaticks, to undermine and blow up the 
 prefent Church and Government. With a Supplement on oc- 
 cafion of the New Scotch Presbyterian Covenant. Two Parts. 
 
 Cajfandra. (But I hope not) telling what will come of it. 
 Wherein the New Aflbciations, &c. are confider'd. No. i. 
 No. 2. 
 
 The Bijhop of Sarurns proper Defence from Speeches /aid to? 
 have been fpoken by him. In two Parts. 
 
 The Irijh Maflacre fet forth in a clear Light.Wherein Mr. Bax- 
 ter's Account of it, in the Hiftory of his own Life, and the A- 
 bridgment thereof by Dr. Catamy, are throughly confider'd, and 
 the Royal Martyr fully vindicated. Together with two Letters 
 from Mr. Cbaundler (the Diffenting Teacher in Bath y reviving 
 the aforefaid Account) to the Reverend Mr. Thomas Cart at Bath, 
 with his two Replies to Mr. Chauvdler. The Second Edition, 
 with Additions. 
 
 Obedience to Civil Government, clearly flated .- Wherein the 
 Chriftian Religion^ is refcued from the falfe Notions pretended to 
 be drawn from it -, and Mr. Hoadly's New Scheme, in his Laft 
 Book of the Origin and Form of Government, is fully confi- 
 derU 
 
 The
 
 Deifls Manual : Or a rational Inquiry into the Chri/lia* 
 Religion. With fome Confide rations on Mr. Hobbs's Spinofa, Tfbe 
 Oracles of Reafon, c. By C. Gildon, Gent, Publiflier of the Ora- 
 cles ofReafcn. To which is prefix'd, a Letter from the Reverend 
 Mr. Leflie. 
 
 The Scripture Account of the Eternal Rewards or Puniftments 
 of all that hear of theGoJpel. By Henry Dodwett y M. A. 
 
 Seneca's Morals, By way of Abftraft. With a Difcourfe under 
 the Title of an After-thought. 
 
 Fables of &fep, and other ancient -Mythologies. With Mo- 
 rals, and Reflections. 
 
 A Guide to Eternity. Written in -Latin by Cardinal John Bona. 
 
 Tulty's Offices : And ^Emfmus's Colloquies. Both translated in- 
 to Englifj. 
 
 laflby Sir Roger L'Eilrange.; 
 
 - Eflays of Seigneur de Montagine In Three Volumes. With 
 Marginal Notes and Quotations, and an Account of the Au- 
 thor's Life and Character. .Made Englifi by Charles Cotton Efq; 
 The Fourth Edition. 
 
 The Maxims of Government, man Advice to a Republick, 
 dewing, how it ought to govern it felf in order to perpetuate 
 its Dominion. In which are alfo confider'd the feveral Interefts 
 of all the Princes of Europe, with Refpect to the AiFairs of leafy. 
 -By Father Paul, Councellor of State. 
 
 Philofcph/cal Principles of Ret/gion, Natural and- Reveal' d : in 
 Two Parts. The Firft containing the Elements of Natural Phi- 
 Ipfophy, and the Proofs of Natural Religion: Second Edition. 
 The Second Part, containing the Nature of Infinites, together 
 with the Philofophick Principles of Revcal'd Religion. By 
 George Che)ne, M. D. F. R. S. 
 
 A Panegyrick on the Maccabees, by St. Gregory Naz.iatiy.en : Of 
 unreafonable Diversions, by Sahina. A Defcription of the 
 Manners cf the Pagan World : A confolatory Difcourfe to the 
 Chriftians of Carthage-. Of the Advantage of Patience : By St. 
 Cyprian. Done into English by Mr. Collier. Together with two 
 Eflays on Difcontent and Faming ; by the fanu Hand. 
 
 The celebrated Story of the Thebean Legion, no Fab.'e; in An- 
 fwer to the Objections of Dr. Gilbert Bwnet's Preface to his 
 Tranflation of Laftantius da Mortilus Pcrfecutomm. Written by 
 the Reverend Dr. ttckes.
 
 THE 
 
 Publisher's PREFACE. 
 
 H E Learned Author of thefe Dialogues, &c. (as the 
 late very Reverend Dean of Wwcefter obferv'd * of * preface t 
 him fome Years ago) being well known among us for kit I. Vol. of 
 his excellent Writings figainfl Atheifls,Deifts, Socinians, Centroverjial 
 Quakers,Eraftians,<w2 Latitudinarians,/or which he "oaff^f&j-fZf 
 
 is 1 * - i it ir -nii-. n puelijn a t f\Tl> 
 
 never be forgotten : bince when he has alio writ agamit the Paptfts; I7oy> 
 and no Man fince the Time of Archbijhop Laud, and Bijbop Moreton, 
 (as that venerable Writer adds, not for bis Praife, fays he, for 
 that is due to God, but to fet forth his Felicity) having had bis La- 
 bours bleffed ivttb fuch Stucefs, or made Jo many Converts from Error 
 to Truth, and from no Principles to Principles, andfo confiderabk among 
 their f.veral Parties as he: The Publick having fo much Intereft in 
 this Author, and He -being unhappily reinov'd from, and as it 
 were dead to us, tho 3 yet on this fide Heaven : It has been much 
 wifh'd, that his Works might be collected and publifhed toge- 
 ther ; feeing they are of fuch ufe, and many of them now out of 
 Print. Nor has this been only defir'd, but dcfign'd, as a very 
 proper Antidote againft that general Diflolution of Principles, 
 which all good Men lament in this Age : And for the Encourage- 
 ment of fo beneficial a Defign, a Catalogue of his Theological 
 Works mail be fubjoin'd to this Preface. 
 
 But becaufe the beft Purpofes are too often delay'd in the Exe- 
 cution, and there may be Danger, that this Ifpeak of, mould not 
 be. executed fo foon, as were to be wim'd.i and becaufe, of all the 
 Errors and Herefies this Learned Author has wrote againfl, that 
 of the Ariansznd Socinians feems to be now the moft predominant, 
 I prefum'd, that I could not do either more Juflice to him in his Ab- 
 fence, or greater Service to the Church, than to publifh a-new His 
 Sodnian Contrwerfy difcuffed, wherein as the chief T rafts are con 
 iider'd, which (at the Time of his Writing it) had been here 
 lately printed by thofe Hereticks-, fo there is little they have put 
 out iince, but is in great Meafure obviated, and their Caufc fo 
 
 A baiikd,
 
 The PttWJher's PREFACE. 
 
 baffled, that if it had not had other Supports, than what their 
 weak Pretences to reafoning afford, we might have hoped, it 
 would have filenced them at leaft, if it had not been attended with 
 the fame glorious Succefs, as his Short Method with the Deift t 
 * c. Gtldon, which convinced one * of their moft celebrated Writers, and per- 
 Ge>it. Publ/jh- fuaded him not only to mae a pnblick Retractation of his Er- 
 0r /~ ror, but to write f againft it in Defence of the Truth. 
 efftt Inftead of this, fo much does Intereft out-weigh Reafon, and 
 Manual, or * fuch Power there is in the Favour and Countenance of a few great 
 rational En- Men, that not only fome Remarks, as they call'd them, were foon 
 yf7f t9 f t publifh'd upon the fir/I and laft of thefe Dialogues, and a pretend- 
 
 Chriftian Re- r , Tr . ,. '. . , \ r n i i ' n i r >j 
 
 Ifa'm, with ec * Vindication or thole on the nrft , which are all here aniwer d : 
 fame Confide- But from one Degree of Effrontery to another, thcfe irreconcile- 
 ratuns e?i Mr. able Enemies of the Chriflian Religion are at laft grown fo har- 
 HobbsVSpi- jy as to Declare openly and barefaced aeainft the Divinity of Je- 
 
 nofa, the O- 
 
 noa, e - r s^r -a \ n i i ttr u i r i t 
 
 racier of Rea-J us Cknft, and no longer Iteal into the World their icandalous 
 
 fan, second Libels agaiuft the Son of God, but nfher in their publick Entry 
 
 Thought K. with the Pomp of repeated Advertifements, and all this in or- 
 
 * vo - der to arraign the very Objeft of our Worfhip, tho' in fo doing 
 
 they accufe of the grofTeft Idolatry, not us only, whom they 
 
 delight to Calumniate, but even themfelves, as worfliipping 
 
 what they contend to be a mere Creature, inftead of the Cre- 
 
 ator of Heaven and Earth. 
 
 And herein it may not be improper to obferve, how they imi- 
 tate their dear Brethren the JaDiffcBtetlsl; arnongft whom, itfeems, 
 they have no inconfiderable Party j For Gebal, and Ammon, and 
 Amalek, Sectaries of all Denominations, unite againft the Church, 
 as Herod, and Pontius Pilate did againft our Saviour ; and now 
 fpeak out, and boldly tell the World, they will no longer be 
 tied up to the Doctrine of the Trinity. Witnefs the Cafe of the 
 Ejecled Miniflersy (as they call themfelves) at Exon, and the Ac- 
 count of th> Proceedings at Suiters Hall, &c. And to add to the 
 Malice , the feoctmatls! imitate the BDifftnterS in copy- 
 ing from the Papifts, tho' the greateft Part of their Religion 
 confifts in railing againft them. And they copy from them, 
 in undermining the very Foundations, of their own Worfhip, 
 the more effectually to deftroy ours : For the Papifts in De- 
 fence of their darling Doctrine of Tranfubftamiativv., to account 
 for the many palpable Contradictions moft juflly charg'd upon it, 
 make no fcruple to refolve all the Difficulty into this, That that 
 Doctrine is a Myftery, and upon that account unintelligible to 
 our weak Underftanding. And to fupport this Argument, they 
 
 ar e
 
 The Tuttijher's PREFACE. 
 
 are not afraid to put a fenfelefs Invention of their own, upon the 
 Level with the Dottrine of the ever blcffed Trinity itfelf, and 
 to compare what our narrow Capacities are unable to compre- 
 hend in the moft tremendous Myftery of a Trinity of Persons 
 in the Unity of the Godhead, and what is unintelligible there- 
 in, not in its own Nature, but only in Refpeft of the weaknefs 
 of our Underftanding ; to compare, I fay, what is thus proper- 
 ly myfterious in the Trinity, to that which in their E)odrine of 
 Tranfubftantiation is not Myftery, but Nonfence and Contradi- 
 ction, unintelligible in it felf, and our not comprehending it, fo 
 little chargeable on any Defect in our Intellectuals, that if we 
 had the Underftanding of Angels, we fhould be no more able to 
 comprehend it, than to reconcile the grofleft Contradictions. 
 
 For (to purfue the Argument a little further, as not Foreign 
 to this Controverfy, and give a full Anfwer to that plaufible 
 Objection againft the Trinity, contain'd in this Defence of 
 Tranfubftantiation) a Myftery in the proper Notation of the 
 Word, is fomething hid from us, which our -fhort Sight cannot 
 perceive, nor our narrow Capacities comprehend : Something, 
 tho' not againft our Reafon, yet fo far above it, that through the 
 weaknefs of our Intellects, we are not able to underftand it : 
 Now to apply this to the Cafe before us, that we cannot con- 
 ceive, how the Body of Chrift can be at the fame time at the 
 Right Hand of God the Father in Heaven, and yet with us 
 upon Earth, even in ten Thoufand different Places at once, and 
 that realy, truly, and fubftantially, as the Council of Trent de- 
 clares, this (to mention no more of the Absurdities of Tranfub- 
 ftantiation) is fo far from any Defed in our Under/landings, any 
 weaknefs in the Eyes of our Minds, that we very clearly fee, 
 that this cannot be, and have a moft diftincl: Perception, that 
 it is abfoHitely impofliblej and ic is only an Impropriety in our 
 Manner of Expreffion, to fay, we are not able to conceive how 
 that thing can be, which we evidently perceive cannot be, or to 
 afcribe that to any Defect in us, which is wholly owing to the 
 Nature of the Thing it felf : It is not we that are uncapable to 
 conceive, but the Thing that is not capable of being conceiv'd. 
 
 When we charge the Incapacity upon ourfelves, we might as 
 well fay, that our Arms are too fhort to reach from any height a 
 Thing that is not there, and our Eyes too weak to fee it,- where- 
 as if "we could reach up to the Moon, and fee into the third 
 Heavens, we fhould be never the more able, either to fee or 
 reach what actually is not there; nor could even an infinite Un- 
 
 A 2 derftanding
 
 The PubUJher's PREFACE. 
 
 derftanding comprehend what is in it's own Nature incompre- 
 henfible, and is clearly perceiv'd to be fo by our finite Under- 
 ftanding, weak and imperfect as it is ; for would not this be al- 
 tering the very Nature of Things, and by the Extent of our 
 Knowledge making that to be true, which in its own Nature 
 is falfe? Is it poffible to imagine, that any Degree of Under- 
 ftanding can be fufficient to difcover Things to be otherwife, 
 than they realy are in their cwa Nature ; a- Part, for Inftance, 
 to be equal to the whole; any Thing to be and not to be, to be 
 true and falfe at the fame time ; and that there is not the leaft 
 Abfurdity in any other Contradiction ? Ic is not the abundance,, 
 but the want of Knowledge that occafions fuch Mifreprefentati- 
 ons -, and to fee Things as they are nor, is not owing to the clear- 
 nefs, but the dimnefs of our Sight. 
 
 We know it is no Impeachment even to the Omnipotence of 
 God, that Almighty as hemoft certainly is, yet he cannot lye, 
 or change, or do any Thing elfe againft his Nature. The Im- 
 poffibility is not in him, to whom all Things are partible, but in 
 the Things- themfelves :. And it is fo far from any Defect in his 
 Power, that the contrary, if it were poflible, would be only an 
 Argument of Weaknefs : What may induce ignorant Perfons to 
 think otherwife, is our improper Way of expreifmg it; whereas 
 inftead of faying, that God cannot Lye. or change, who certainly 
 can do every Thing that Omnipotence can do, we ought rather 
 to fay, that it is a Thing impoflible in the very Notion of it, 
 that he fhould do either ; that it is abfolutely repugnant to the 
 Divine Nature, and implies a manifeft Contradiction: And as 
 that muft be impoflible to Omnipotence it felf, which is impof- 
 ble in it's own Nature ; fince no Degree of Power can alter the 
 Nature of Things, nor enable God to do that which cannot be 
 done : So the nature of Things being equally unalterable to any 
 Degree of Knowledge, what in its own Nature is unintelligible^ 
 mutt be fo alfo, not only to our finite Underftandings, but even 
 to the Divine Intellect. 
 
 Such are thofe numerous Contradictions implied in the Do- 
 ctrine of Tranfubftantiation : Whereas what is objected ar 
 .c> gainft that of the Trinity (as our Author fbews in his Preface * 
 to this Work) is no Contradiction, but only a Difficulty, which 
 our weak Underftandings can neither conceive, nor explain ; and 
 being thus hidden from us (as no wonder many Things in the 
 Divine Nature ihou.d be) is on that Account properly a My- 
 ftery, not contrary to our Reafbn, but above it. For Inftance, 
 
 that
 
 The Puttijker's PREFACE 
 
 that God fnould be one and three in the fame Refpedt, were a 
 flat Contradiction, which no degree of Knowledge could fathom 
 or reconcile, and which therefore could not be {aid to be above 
 our Reafon, becaufe it is manifeftly againft it. But that the 
 Three Perfons in the Godhead fliould be but one and the fame 
 Nature, that is, both one and three in different Refpects, one in 
 refpect of the Divine Nature common to them all, and three in 
 refpect of their Perfonality diflinguifiiing each, tho* our finite 
 Under (landings cannot comprehend or explain this (and what is 
 there in the infinite Nature of God, which we can fully compre^ 
 hend?) yet, dim as the Eyes of our weak Intellects are, we can 
 plainly perceive,- that there is no Contradiction therein, and that 
 it is owing only to the . Shortnefs of our Sight, that we cannot 
 fee clearly into it- : We Know it is no Contradiction, that (I 
 don't fay three, but even) a Multitude of Men , fiiould make 
 but one Society, -one Army, one People, that is, be both one and 
 a Multitude in different Reflects : Nor therefore can it imply a- 
 ny Contradiction, that God likewife in different Refpeds.ftiould 
 be both one and three ; the only Difficulty is, fo to explain this 
 Myftery of a Trinity of Perfons in the Unity of the Godhead, as 
 neither to confound the Perfons, nor divide the Subftance; but it 
 is one Thii g to underfland any Point fo fully, as to be able to ex- 
 plain it, and another to fee that there is no Abfurdity in it, tho* 
 it be too difficult for our mallow Capacities to comprehend. 
 
 The Cafe is much the fame here,as it is with Manners out at Sea : 
 where they are not able to fathom the Deep, becaufe their Sound- 
 ing Line is too fhort, they are wont to fay there is no Bottom; 
 whereas, in Reality, the only Defect is, not of Bottom, but of 
 Line to reach, it ; and as in that Cafe their not being able to find 
 Ground, is fo far from proving there is none, that at the fame 
 Time they cannot found it,, they can evince by undoubted Argu- 
 ments, that there muft be fome : So here, our Inability to com- ^ 
 prehendthe Myftery of three Perfons in one Divine Nature, is Jff 1 ^ . J [ 
 
 f c r i -A n /-I--- r* ,' ftf tae *W*'f 
 
 io far from being an Argument againft the Trinity, or a Proof and 
 that there is any Abfurdity in it, that at the fame Time that wzft 
 
 find our feives unable to explain it, we can both produce manifefl **f*?4* ' 
 Proofs of it from God's Word, and clearly perceive, that, difficult ^^^nd 
 as it is, and out of the reach of our narrow-Capacities, yzt Tradition,;** 
 there is nothing in it repugnant to Reafon, or that implies a *> Dialogue 
 Contradiftion. ^^ apro ~ 
 
 To ufe the Words of Bimop Stillmgfteet * upon this Argument, Jgjj 
 We do not fay, (in aflerting the Trinity in Unity) that three Perfo
 
 Tf:e PuMiJher's PREFACE. 
 
 a~'t but cne PerfoM, cr that cue Nature is three Natures ; but that then 
 are tJjfee Perfcns tn cne Nature. If therefore one individual Nature fa 
 conwtuntcable to three Perfons, there is no Appearance of Abfurdity in 
 this DoSir'.ns. And en the other fid:, it 'will be impo/fib/e there Jbottld 
 ke theeGods, where there is cne and the fame individual Nature ; fcr 
 three Gads muft have three feveral divine Natures, Jince it is the di- 
 vine Ejfc-nce that makes a God. The Difficulty is to apprehend 
 the manner of this Communication of the fame Nature to three 
 diflinct Perfons : But to argue from thence, that the thing itfelf 
 is impofllble, is as fenfelefs as to maintain, that there is no Sun in 
 the Firmament, becaufe our Arms are not long enough to reach 
 it. . There are ten thoufand things, even in created Nature, out 
 of the reach, not only of our Arms, but of our Underftandings. 
 Indeed our Intellect, is fo very much bounded, that there is little 
 even in this fublunary World, of which we have an adequate 
 Comprehenfion. What Wonder then, if in the infinite Nature of 
 God there be fomething which we cannot conceive, I may fay, 
 if there be nothing which we can ? For his Eternity, his Omni- 
 prefence, and all his other etfcntial Attributes, are as much beyond 
 our Conception, .even as the Tr'nity of Perfons in the Unity of 
 his Nature : Therefore to prove this impoflible, it is not enough 
 to fhew, that we cannot conceive the manner of it (for that 
 would be as good an Argument that there is no God, as that 
 there is no Trinity) but you mutt firfl prove (as the fame learn- 
 L-rf, n ed Bifhcp fays t) that the divine infinite Nature can communicate it- 
 
 T7e Doctrine , -r i r j -i i AT n u / 
 
 of tbf Trinity ielj no otnerwije .than a fin te individual Nature can: For all a:know- 
 
 and Tranfub-lcdge the fame common Nature may be ccmjKunicated to three Perfoni ; 
 
 Jta>it<at-o:t an j J~ t / 2e whole Controverfy refls on this fingle Point , as to Reafw, 
 
 T^firft Part^ ct ^- r ^ ^'^ Ke Nature and Pe~fcns arc to be judgd and meafi'.r d 
 
 P/7. 'as hitman Nature andPerfcns are It is agreed on all Hands, that 
 
 there is a Difference between Nature and Perfon i but what is 
 
 the Principle GfJ/idiviaxa'tion, even in created Beings, which 
 
 for inftance, difcrirainates the human Nature in one Man from the 
 
 fame human Nature in another, and thereby diftjngujlies their 
 
 Perfons, is very hard to refolve, and therefore may well be ;w- 
 
 comfrchenf.blc in a Being, whofe Nature and Perfections inli- 
 
 nitely furpafs the Bounds of our narrow Capacities. 
 
 And the fame Infinity of the divineNature,which renders the man- 
 ner of itscommunicatingitfelfunintelligibletoour'weakUnderftan- 
 ding, may induce us to think it unreafonable (as the fame great Au- 
 *Ibi<! /?<:9^ t: k orar Lies *') *k atff fiwld b;fo bounded as to the manner of th.it, 
 Pan t p. 29. as the Nature of Man is. Every individual Man (as he purfues the 
 
 Argu-
 
 The. PuWfhefs PREFACE. 
 
 Argument) has not only individual Properties, that is, the common Ma- 
 ture of Man, Umhed byfone unaccountable Principle, that doth make 
 him different jrom all other Men, having the fa/ne Nature "with himfelf. 
 T'be Difficulty then does not lie in a Community of Nature, and a 
 Diftinction o/Perfons j for that is granted amcvg Men ; b'lt in the 
 Unity of Nature -with the Difference fl/Perfons. And fuppofing the 
 divine Nature to be infinite in its Perfection, I do not fee (fays he) 
 how it is capable of being bounded , as ths commm Nature of Man in 
 Individuals is ; and if it be not capable of being bounded and limited,, 
 it mufl dijfufe itfelj into all the Perfons in ths fame individual manner ; 
 and jo (as he concludes) this Doctrine of the 'Trinity is not repug- 
 nant to Reafon. 
 
 And yet as much Difference as there is betwixt this incompre- 
 henfible My fiery, and the manifold Abfurdities Q'tT'ranfubftamia- 
 ticn-y tho' the former is the very Object of our common Worfhip, 
 the Bads and Foundation of the Chriftian Religion-, and that in- 
 to which we are all baptiz'd ; yet the Papifts are fo fond of the 
 latter, that they are not aftraid, as I have ohferv'd, to put both 
 upon the fame Level ; and to excufe the grofs Abfurdity and 
 Contradiction of their pretended My/tery of Tranfubftantiation, 
 dare to involve the real and tremendous Myflery of the Trinity, 
 in the fame Accufation of Contradiction and Abfurdity : but that, 
 as we have feen, with fo little fiiew of Reafon, as only to betray 
 the flight Regard they have for the moft fundamental Doctrine of 
 our common Chriflianity, and giveoccafion to fufbedi that their 
 Defign is not fo much to defend the Doctrine of Tranfubftantia- 
 tion, as to undermine that of the Trinity. I do not fay they de- 
 fign this; I cannot but hope better of them , from what many 
 of their Authors have wrote, with great Strength, in Defence of 
 the Trinity ; but fuch is their Zeal for a modern ridiculous Do- 
 ftrine of their own, that nothing muft ftand in Competition with 
 it: They leave no Stone untnrn'd to eftablifh it, tho' it be on the 
 Ruins of our common Faith; and in a Dialogue publim'd in King 
 Raines the Second's Reign, between a new Catholick Convert and a 
 Proteftant , they undertook to prove the Myflery of the Trinity to be 
 at abjurd a Doctrine cu Tranfubjlantiation, thereby e^pojing the moft 
 venerable Myflery of our holy Religion (as the learned An f were r of 
 that Dialogue juftly complains, pag. 2.) to the Scarn and Derijion 
 of Infidels and Hereticks. 
 
 He might have inftaiiced particularly in the De'fls and So- 
 c:nians , who with all their Clamours againft Popery, conde- 
 fcend to ufe Pofrjh Arguments againil us, and with the fame 
 
 Spirit
 
 The PuW/her's PREFACE. 
 
 Spirit of Opposition, wherewith the Papifts venture the under- 
 mining of our common Religion to maintain their own, thefe 
 Libertines and Free-thinkers involve therafelves in that very Charge 
 of Idolatry, to which they would render us obnoxious, by rob- 
 bing the Object of our Worfl?ip of his. Divinity, and feem tincon- 
 cern'd what they worfliip themfelves, if they can but prove that 
 what we worfhip is no God. 
 
 But I (lull leave my Author to , confute them, and conclude 
 this Preface with myearneft Prayers for their Converiion, that at 
 Laft the infinite Mercy of the Son of God may convince them 
 that he is more than Man, and their own happy Experience that 
 He is Almighty to fa ve, .extort from them an Acknowledgment 
 of His Divinity. 
 
 O merciful God, who haft made all Men, and hateft nothing that 
 thou haft made,, nor ivouldeft the Death of a Sinner, but rather 
 that he fhould be converted and, live ', haue Mercy upon all Jews, 
 liirks, Infidels and Hereticks, and take from them all Ignorance, 
 Hardnefs of Heart , and Contempt of thy JVord ; and fo fetch 
 them home, bleffed Lord, to thy Flock, that they may be fa'ved a- 
 mong the Remnant of the trus Ifraelites, and be wade one Fold 
 under one Shepherd, Jefus Chrift our Lord,, who liveth and 
 reigneth "with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, World with" 
 out ena. Amen. 
 
 TH E Snake in the Grafs, in 3 
 Vol. 8vo. 
 
 Satan difrob'd from his Difguize of 
 Light, 4*0. 
 
 A Difcourfe of Water-Baptifm, ^to. 
 
 A Difcourie (hewing who are qua- 
 lify'd to adminifter the Sacra- 
 ments, 4*0. 
 
 The Primitive Herefie of the Qua- 
 kers, 4/0. 
 
 The Prefent State of Quakerifm, 
 8f0. 
 
 Reflections on the Quakers Proteft. 
 4fo. 
 
 The Quakers Sayings, under feveral 
 I -Heads, 4^0. 
 
 The Divine Right of Tythes, ST;O. 
 
 A Ihort Method with Deifts and 
 Jews, 8-ua. 
 
 The Socinian Controverfy difcufs'd, 
 4?0. 
 
 A Sermon againft Marriages in dif- 
 ferent Communions, 8vo. 
 
 The Cafe of the Regale and Ponti- 
 ficate, 8w. 
 
 The Truth of Chriftianity demon- 
 ft rated, %<vo. 
 
 The Cafe dated, in a Dialogue be- 
 tween the Churches oi'-Rwie and 
 England, &C.
 
 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 .jo* &!';..,'. tju^ fyjfr 5-ATv*''. V A* ; ,v:^r< f^ .pelnJU'itf:^ ; -K'.V 
 
 THE Importance of the Soclmm Controverfy {hews it felf y And. 
 Needs no wards to Enforce it. It is no lefs than whether what 
 we Worfliip is God or a Creature: Whether we Adore the 
 True or A Falfe GOD, ad are the Groffeft Idolaters in the World* 
 
 I wi[b ther had been no Occajtov of Reviving this Controverfy, 
 which of A long time has lain AJleep among 1)s. But of late 
 Years tbefe Socinians, under the Name of Unitarians, have 
 Appeared with Great Boldnefs, and have not only fH'd the Nation 
 with their Numerous Pamphlets, Printed upon a Publick Stock, 
 *nd given away Gratis among the People, 'whereby many have 
 been Deluded : But they have Arrived to that Pitch of AfTu- 
 ranee, as to fet up Publick Meetings in our Halls in London, 
 where fome Preach to them who have been Spenfd ont even by the 
 Presbyterians for their Socinianifm. 
 
 It is told in the Life of Mr. Thomas Firmin that he Deftgn'd 
 to have a Pablick Meeting-Place fet up in London for the Unita- 
 rians. And, now we fee it Accomplifhed, and their Standart fet up \ 
 
 Thefe things have made it Ncceffary to Appear in Defence of 
 the Chriftian Faith, that it be not Loft among us ; and to give 
 Jome Check to thefe Socinian Pamphlets which Swarm, through this 
 City efpecially. 
 
 Inflead of Enlarging in a, Preface, I will here Prefint the Rea- 
 der with a Rarity, which 1 take to be fo, becaufe of the Difficul. 
 ty I had to obtain it, It is the following Addrefs or Epiftle of our 
 Unitarians to the Morocco Ambaflador. And the Latin Treatife 
 Mentioned in it (of which likewife I have *Copy) I have feen in Print 
 here in London, to fhew the Diligence of the Party. / know not 
 if it is Publickly Sold, for I only faw it in a private Hand. 
 
 A ' 2
 
 ii PREFACE; 
 
 / have likewife Added two Letters upon this Subjetf, one wrote 
 in the year 1694, the other in 1697. Which may ferve as a Com- 
 pendium of what is at Large Treated of in thefe Dialogues, and Summs 
 up the Merit of the Cauje in a few words 5 which will help the Me- 
 mory, and ferve for a Ready Anfwer to Socinians in Difcourfe, 
 that may not be at hand to give^ when it is to be Collected out 
 of A Larger Volume. 
 
 I,&fre the Reader toonfider wk*t Acconni the iJakjrians biw 
 of Manomet aad his Great ^udgraint in. tIMr folldwitig Addrefs 
 to the AmbafTador, to whom they fay, That God hath Raifed your 
 MAHOMET to Defend the Faith with the Sword, as a Scourge 
 on the Idolizing Chriftians And we, for the Vindication of your 
 Law Maker's Glory, ftrive to Prove, that fuch Faults and*lr> 
 regularities (not cohering with the Fafhion of the Reft of the 
 ALCORAN Building, nor with the Undoubted fayings of your 
 Prophet) were Foifted into the Scatter'd Papers found af- 
 ter MAHOMET's Death -And we do Endeavour to Clear, 
 
 by whom, and in what Time, fuch Alterations were made in 
 the fir ft fettting out of the Alcoran. t 
 
 This is the like Vindication which they make for the Holy Scrip- 
 tures 0/God, That many things were Foifted in, which they do not Like, 
 as they Frequently Anfiver in their Pamphlets, particularly as to the Wri- 
 tings of St. john^allofrvhofe Authority they Strike at^becaufe they make 
 mofl againfl them. So that by the fame Salvo the Alcoran is Vindica- 
 ted and the Scriptures 1 And Mahomet is here jaid to be Raised 
 up by God, to Scourge the Idolizing Chriftians, and the Alcoran 
 to Preferve the true Faith / And they fay in the fame Place, that 
 MAHOMET wou'd have himfelf to be but a Preacher of the 
 Gofpel of Chrift. Such a Preacher indeed as our Unitarians ! 
 And they fay truly to the Ambaffador, We your fellow-Champi- 
 ons fo.r the Truth. 
 
 And they have face Ctrry'd on the fame Argument in their late 
 Writings, of Preferring Mahometifm to Chriftianity, as you will 
 fee in the fecond Letter, Sect. II. Nay, th.it they Efteem even Pa- 
 ganifcn ^Preferable /<? Chriflian Dottrh. Andytt tLeytakeit iff, 
 That we wiH not own them as our Chriftian Brethren*. 
 
 But now it is time to let the Reader fee thofs Papers I have Men- 
 tion* d. ;Afid he wilt Judge for himfelf. .^ 
 
 AN
 
 iii 
 
 A N 
 
 01 ?u . rptorf J^3&;rrx3 ,.pd 'jrfjurrj 
 
 To His Illuftrious Excellency 
 
 Ameth Ben Ameth Embaffador 
 
 tU of the Mighty Emperor of Fez 
 
 Vs< and Morocco, to Charles the 2,d. 
 
 -' { 
 
 King of Great Britain. 
 
 won smSw ioimrfw t iV*sVO\ V 'u^H ..orb zj ..(gpfjft 
 
 jft^lf*'jv^ nt 223ti)^J rr*oi*iDa/Jo^T "^ii 'jp^o^D?!. 
 
 4 MONGST the many fplcndid Entertain- 
 
 ZV" ments and Receptions, amidft the feveral 
 JL A congratulatory Encomiums and Prefents, 
 that were offer d unto your Excellency, as PublickTe- 
 ftimonies of the Efteem and Admiration the Inhabi- 
 tants of this Weftern Empire do juftly conceive of the 
 Mighty and Glorious Emperor of Morocco, your 
 Ma'fter: And of your own peculiar Virtues; there 
 hath been no fuch Addrefs or Prefent made unto 
 your Excellency, none, as we prefume, that was of 
 a Weightier Importance (tho' flenderer appearance) 
 as this, which we now fubmit to your likirig and 
 acceptance, at your Departure. For the contents 
 thereof, being about the Myfteries 'of that All fuf- 
 
 A 3 ficient
 
 IV 
 
 ficicntand Invifible One Deity 5 its ownintrinfick va- 
 lue needs no Words, nor the ufual adornments that 
 might be expedted from us, to fct it out with an 
 outward fplendor, to fo difcerning a Perfon in Spi- 
 ritual and fublime Matters, as your Excellency is 
 known to be, ev'n in the Judgment of learn'd Uni- 
 verfities. Befides, Truth in thefe Countries is fain 
 to go, fometimes like Princes, in a Difgufe ; who 
 being out of their own Kingdoms, are driven to put 
 by their Royal Habiliments, for to converfe with 
 more Safety and Freedom, with a few wife and 
 Faithful Worthys they can beft truft. Religion then, 
 Excellent Sir, the Religion of an one only Godhead 
 (as alfo of many other great Verities, wherein ye 
 agree with our Seft and difagrec from other Chri- 
 ftians) is the VaiVd Princefs, whereof we are now 
 become the Venterfom Ulhers into your Excellen- 
 cies Prefence, I faid Venturfome notbyreafon of 
 any affront we need Fear at your hands ; but rather 
 from the ralh Severity of fome of our own fellow 
 Chriftians here, for venting thofe Verities, we fhall 
 delare to hold in common with you ; (which are 
 contrary to them) yetCnr/?Vand our Spirit is other- 
 wife, to eflay by gentle Pcrfuafions and Union 
 with all Mankind, as far as may be. 
 
 KNOW therefore, Noble Sir, that we are of 
 that Se6t of Chriftians , that arc call'd Vnitarians; 
 who firft of all, do both in our own Names, and in 
 that of a Multitude of our Perfuafion, fa wife and 
 Rejigigus fort of People) heartily falute, and congra- 
 tulate.
 
 V 
 
 tulate Your Excellency, and all that are with you, 
 as Votaries and fellow Worfhippers of that Sole Su 
 preme Deity of the Almighty Father and Creator : and 
 we greatly rejoyce, and thank his Divine Bounty, 
 that hath preferv'd Your Emferor , and his People, in 
 the excellent knowledge of that Truth, touching the 
 belief of an Only Soveratgn God-, (who hath no P/- 
 Jiinftion, or Plurality in Perfons} and in many other 
 wholfom Do&rins, wherein ye prefevere : About 
 which, this our Weftern part of the World, are de- 
 clin'd into feveral Errors, from the integrity of 
 their Predeceffors. But befides this much in the 
 general our Attendance on your Excellency at this 
 time, hath a more fpecial profpeft, as you Ihall per- 
 ceive by the Sequel. For, about Thirty or more Years, 
 there came an Embaffador, as your Excellency is, from 
 the Emperor of Morocco, into Europe ; with whom 
 Count 'Maurice of Nafau, Prince of Orange, (a Pro~ 
 teftant Chriftian) and the Prince of Portugal, fa Papal 
 Chriftian) held a Conference about the Christian and 
 Mahumetan Religion. The Ambaffador deferr'd then 
 to Speak fully his mind on the matter, till after his 
 return home when he had there confulted with the 
 Learned in the Alcoran, he fends his Anfwer in a Let 
 ter ; which not only fets forth the Tenets of his own 
 Religion, but alfo refutes fome Errors held amongft 
 the Proteftanfr and Romanift Chriftians. In fome of 
 which, as in other points, we prefume that Embafla- 
 dor was miftaken and mifinftrudted. Now, we here- 
 with prefcnt unto your Excellency, a faithful Trail- 
 
 fcripc
 
 fcript of that Letter -, that's with difficulty- to 
 only in the Cabinets of thofe PrinctfadQ whom 
 was djre&ed in Lttin. Not that we account the c 
 tents thereof, tp be a Novelty to you that are of 
 that Religion ; but becaufe it is a piece of Rarity and 
 Learning: And chiefly, fof that it is the foundation, 
 on which we build another fmall piece or two, in 
 the fame Language: The which we here Dedicate, like- 
 wife unto your Emperor, to your Excellency, and to 
 his Mauritanian Subjects; the which comprehends the 
 makirdefign of our waiting on you at prefent. Now 
 forafmuch, as that Noble Embaflador, doth in this 
 Letter write fome things, which to us feem very un- 
 grounded, and therein charges without Sufficient 
 diftinftion, the whole body of Chriftians, with fuch 
 Errors, whjtch we Vnitarians do abhor as well as the 
 Mahometans ; with whom we muft agree mfuch, e* 
 ven agamftour other fellow Chriftians: Therefore, 
 we that arc faiad to.be more exerci&d Soldiers in 
 Jfuch controverted, points in Religion, and^ ^ftiou'd beft 
 know the diflerences in Europe about the fame, (hall 
 undertake in this our Second m& Third Treatis,(\vhich 
 are but as Observations on that, Letter) Firft, to fet 
 forth (for your better information) briefly and di- 
 ftinftly in what points all Chriftians do generally ar 
 grce with the Mahumetans, in matters of Religion. 
 2dly. In what dungs Chriftians Umverfally difagrec 
 from you, with the reafons for the feme. ?dly. In 
 what Cafes you do juftly diflfent from the Roman 
 Oatholicks* 4thly. That Proteftant Cbriftians do joyn 
 
 with
 
 vii 
 
 with you, in your condemning of thofc Romijh Et- 
 rors, and theirs and our reafons for the fame. 5thly. 
 We intend there to lay dowi^ in what Articles, we 
 the Unitarian Chriftians, (of all others) dp folely 
 concur with you Mabumetans^^to which we draw 
 nigherin thofe important points, than all other Pro- 
 t eft ant or Papal Chriftians :) With our Additional ar- 
 guments to yours 5 to prove, that both we and you 
 have unavoidable grounds from Scrifture and Rea- 
 fon, to diffent from other Chriftians in fuch Verities 
 (tho we do count them otherwife) our Brethren in 
 our Lord Jefus Cbrift. 
 
 THEREFORE in the 6th place/ w$ as your 
 near eft FeUow Cha??ifiom for thofe Truths; We, who 
 with our Unitarian Brethren were in all Ages ex- 
 
 v& 
 
 ercis'd to defend with our Pens, the Faith of One 
 Supreme God $ ( without Perfonalities or Pluralities ) 
 as he hath rais'd your Mahomet to do the fame with 
 the Sword, as a Scourge on thofe Idolizing Chriftians : 
 We I fay, in this our peculiar lot in Religious Contro- 
 verfies, (hall in our duty of Love, undertake to 
 difcover unto you, in thefe our Books, thofe weak 
 places that are found* in the platform of your Re- 
 ligion ; and lhall herein (with your favour) offer to 
 your Confideratiori foine Materials to repair them. 
 For, we do (for the Vindication of your Law-Ma- 
 kers Glory) ftrive to prove, that^uch faults and Ir- 
 regularities, not cohering with the Faftiion of the 
 feft of the Alcoran building ; nor with the undoubt- 
 ed fayings of your Prophet, nor with the Gojpel of 
 5b Chrift
 
 viii 
 
 Chrift (whereof Mahamet wou'd have himfelf to be 
 but a Preacher) that therefore ( I fay ) thofe Con- 
 tradidtions were Folded into the fcatter'd Papers 
 found after Mahomet's Death, of which in truth the 
 Alcoran was made up, it being otherwife impoffi- 
 blc that a Man of that Judgment, that hath prov'd 
 it felf in other things fo Confpicuoufly, fliou'd be 
 guilty of fo many and frequent repugnancies, as 
 are to be feen in thofc Writings, and Laws that are 
 now adays giv'n out under his name. We do 
 then in thefe our Papers, endeavour to clear by 
 whom, and in what time fuch Alterations were 
 made in the firft fctting out of the Alcoran ; and 
 tho' we have ten times more to urge on the fame 
 Subjedt that we prefent ; yet by a few Summary 
 touches, that we have here in few days made up 
 for your view ; we Suppofe there may be enough 
 to fatisfy any unprejudiced and thinking Perfons : 
 Such as it is, we befeech you to accept thereof as 
 Friendly advices left to your Reafon and Conlcience 
 to judge of with your felves ; feeing we offer not the 
 fame as to defame or upbraid you, but out of hu- 
 manity and a Joving Spirit, to the end that if you 
 think fit to axamine and rcdrefs thofe Errors, we 
 may by your proceedings, flop the mouths of your 
 Adverfaries, againft whom we are often fain toftand 
 for you in fuch Points wherein we may well and 
 reafonably do it : Leaft after all, your Excellency 
 ftiou'd judge of this our undertaking and Prefent, in 
 a narrow and contracted Idea, futable to the den- 
 
 dernefs
 
 IX 
 
 dernefs of our* Perfons, Parts, or Retinue, who are 
 but two (ingle Philofophers, and yet come as Ora- 
 tors of thofe Vnitarians, whom we proclaimed to 
 be fo great and confiderable a People, it is neceffary 
 we fhou'd give a fhort view of the Antiquity and 
 extent of this Noble Se8, and hint to you the rea- 
 fons that makes them in thefe European parts, ufe 
 fuch Cautioufnefs -, and as to their Sentiments to 
 carry themfelves, as thofe Princes I mentioned, to 
 go Incognito. 
 
 As to their Antiquity, I need but call it to your 
 mind, that not only all the Patriarchs down from 
 Adam till Mofes, not only all the Jews under the 
 written Law, and the Old Teftament, to this very 
 day, were ft ill Wodhippers of an one only God (with- 
 out a Trinity of Perfons : ) but that alfo all the Pri- 
 mitive ChnfiianSy in and after Chrift, and his Apo- 
 ftles time, never own'd any other, befides that Sin- 
 gle and Supreme Deity* and all the true and pureft 
 Chrijlians their Lawful Difciples, do to this very 
 day, worfhip no other, but the Sole Soveraign GoJ y 
 the Father and Maker of all things. And therefore 
 are we calld Unitarians, as Worlhippers of that 
 one only Godhead in Effence and Perfon, that we 
 may be diftinguifh d from thofe backfliding Chrifli- 
 ans named Trinitarians, who own three Go-equal 
 and Self-fubfifting Perfons, whereof every one is an 
 abfolute and Infinite God (as they pretend) and yet 
 they'll have all thefe three , to be but one God, which 
 is fuch a Contradicting abfurdity, that certainly 
 
 a our
 
 ! 
 
 our wife Maker and Lawgiver, wou'd never im- 
 pofe it to be believ'd upon that harmonious and 
 relative Reftitude he hath plac'd in the Reafon of 
 Man. But of the firft opposed this rifing Error 
 in old times, was Paul of Samofate, a Zealous and 
 Learn'd Bijhop of Antioch, with his People and Ad- 
 herents he liv'd Sixty years before the Council of 
 Nice, that was held on this Subject about three 
 hundred years after the Afcenfion of Cbrift our 
 Lord. There was alfo Marcellus Biftiop of Ancyra 
 in Galatia, with his Friends and Followers. Eufta- 
 tius Bifhop of Antioch, and Arrius a Presbyter of 
 Alexandria , with many more thatliv'd in the time 
 of that Council did openly withftand and refute 
 the Trinitarian Schifm ,-as we fee in theChronicles of 
 that Age. I omit Photims Biftiop of Syrmium, and the 
 famous Neftorious with many more Perfecutedperfons 
 for the fame Truth ; Who, tho' they had fome Nomi- 
 nal diflferency about the too Curious Expofitions 
 ofthofe Myfteries; yet, they agreed in that main 
 point of the Undiftinguifh'd Soveraign "Unity. And 
 from the Reign of the Emperor Conftantine, both 
 the Oriental and Occidental Empire generally per- 
 fifted for fome hundred years in that fame Faith, 
 refilling thofe contradictory opinions of the Trini- 
 tarians, cv n in the declining times of Chriftianity, 
 occafion'd by the Growth, or the Tyrannical Ufur- 
 pation of the Popes and Clergy, who wou'd force 
 their private notions and human Inventions on 
 Men's Confciences ; that is, in the Reign of the
 
 IX 
 
 Emperor Charles the Great about the year Eight 
 Hundred ; Bonoflus and Elipandus with other Bijhops 
 and Chriflians in Spain, unanimpufly oppos'd the 
 Doftrin of a Trinity. And of late years, in Europe, 
 ftood up the pious and noble Perfonage Fauflus. 
 Sorinus and his Polonian Affociation of Learned 
 Perfonages, that Writ many Volums againlt that 
 and other Sprung up Errors among Chriflians. But 
 now to lay before your Excellency, the extent of 
 this Orthodox Faith of the Vnitarian Chriflians, 
 in what Nations it is held, be pleas'd to ob- 
 ferv-e that all the Chriflians throughout Perfla, 
 Armenia, Mefopotamia, thofe called of St. Thomas, and 
 fome Hollanders and Portuguese in Afia, thofc that 
 live among the Greeks in Europe, even your Neigh- 
 bouring Chriflians in Nubia. All thofe together 
 {which far exceed the Trinity averting Chriflians) 
 do maintain with us, that Faith of One So- 
 veraign God, one only in Per/on and Effence. 
 And why fhou'd I forget to add you Mahumetans, 
 who alfo confent with us in the Belief and Wor- 
 fhip of an One only Supreme Deity, to whom be 
 Glory for ever. Amen. 
 
 But in the Weft and North of Europe, we are 
 not fo numerous, by reafon of the inhumanity of 
 the Clergy, who contrary to the gentle ways of 
 Chrifl, wou'd convince us and others, buc by Fire 
 and Thunder, and Jayls, and Swords, of Princes $ 
 tho' our Patient Carriage and Brotherly Love to- 
 wards them for their precious Truths we ftill hold 
 
 a 2 ., in
 
 Xll * 
 
 in Common, might Evidence to them of what 
 fort of Spirit both they and we are. Yet our 
 People are numerous in Poland, in Hungary, in Hol- 
 land as well as England, but being under the threats 
 of fuch Un-chriftian Perfecutions, (which hath been 
 in the Wifdom of God, the lot of all true Chri- 
 ftians from the beginning, for to try, excrcife and 
 fortify their Knowledge and Virtue by the oppofi- 
 tion of their Adverfaries) we cannot open our felves, 
 nor argue touching our Faith, but that ev'n our 
 neareft Friends that are Trinitarians, out of a mi- 
 ftaken Zeal, wou'd be the firft to deliver us- up 
 to Bifhops Courts, Prifons and Inquifitions to the 
 endangering both our Lives and Fortunes. That 
 is the fad reafon, that we have not hitherto wai- 
 ted in greater Numbers, to congratulate and Wel- 
 come your Excellency, nor can at this prcfent in 
 fuch a manner, as we well judge to be fuitable to 
 your Grandure, and the refpedt we bear to your 
 Prince and People, for any (hare of Divine Truth, 
 you or any other do hold entire with us from our 
 God and our Saviour Chrift. 
 
 Countenance therefore this Philofophical plain- 
 nefs and freedom (that's part of our Profeflion) 
 which emboldens us Two to be more forward 
 than others of our Perfuafion, to offer to you rather 
 than fail, ev n a Mefs of our own Trade. Such 
 flight prefents in appearance as thefe little Books 
 are, whofe contents neverthelefs we think fo im- 
 portant for the good of your Souls that we wou'd 
 
 be
 
 Xlll 
 
 be ready (if acceptable) to go and after t the Con- 
 tents thereof, to the learned of your Country, had 
 we any profpeft of Succefs,, while we are uncertain 
 what Entertainment attends fuch as would object 
 any thing againft your Alcoran be it never fo mo- 
 deftly and lovingly proposed. 
 
 Therefore, fince we cannot now in Perfon, be 
 plcas'd Noble Sir, to Communicate the import of 
 thefe Manufcripts, to the Consideration of the fit- 
 teft Perfons of your Country-men., only as a Scant- 
 ling of what the more learn'd of our Vnitarian 
 Brethren cou'd fay, far beyond any thing that's 
 here on thefe Subjedh of our Differences. And 
 leaft you might think it too mean an Office to 
 be instrumental in fpreading any fuch divine Ve- 
 rity ; confider, if it be fo great a matter to per- 
 form the part of an Emba/ador among earthly Princes 
 (which your Excellency hath fo laudably done of 
 late) how far more Glorious is it, to undertake 
 the leaft Embaffy in the Caufe and Religion of 
 the Supreme Monarch of the World. To whom be 
 glory and Dominion for ever, Amen.
 
 XV 
 
 T H 
 
 Socinian Trinity 
 
 i AND 
 ;. C O M P A R ' D with that of the 
 
 CHRISTIANS- 
 
 IN A 
 
 '^ ^;|?E, T T E R f^:; 
 
 FRIEND 
 
 S I R, 
 
 p^ H E Socinians hold a Trinity as well as we; 
 Nay they hold feveral Trinities. They have 
 lately Publifhed B idles ConfeJ/ion of Faith tou- 
 ching the Holy Trinity. But in the Explanation of this 
 is all the difference < (I)
 
 XVI 
 
 (I.) He, and one part of the Socinions, make the 
 Second and Third Perfons to be Creatures, wherein 
 they are guilty of a very grofs fort of Idolatry, 
 beyond what was acknowledged by any of the 
 Heathens, to join Creatures into one Holy Trinity 
 with God, and to Baptize Men into the Faith and 
 Worlhip of Creatures. The Arians could never 
 anfvver the Charge of Idolatry in giving Divine 
 Honour to Chrift, while they acknowledged him 
 to be but a Creature : Nor can the Worfhif of 
 Chrift, fuppofing him but a Creature, be excufed 
 from Idolatry, by any manner of way., which will 
 not at the fame time juftifie the Excufes not only 
 of the Church of Rome, but of the Heathens them- 
 felves for their Idolatry. 
 
 ( II. ) Another fort of Sotinians deny the Second 
 and Third of the Trinity to be Perfons : And make 
 them no more than the Power and Wijdom of God, 
 one called his Word, the other his Spirit, but yet 
 that they are nothing different from God as by a 
 Man's Spirit, you mean the Man himfelf. Thus the 
 Brief Hiftory of the Vnitarians. 
 
 But, by this Rule, they cannot flop at a Trinity 
 in God, but muft go thro' all his Attributes, Juftice, 
 Mercy, Providence, Omnipotence, Eternity and Twen- 
 ty more ; and mftead of the Three in Heaven 
 ( which they acknowledge ) they muft go to a Fourth, 
 Fifth, Sixth t and without End. 
 
 In the next Place, where it is faid, John i. 14. 
 The Word was made Fle/b, they fay that no Perfon 
 
 was
 
 XV li 
 
 was made Flefh &-*$\u& : S*MM& of the; Trinity they fay 
 is not a Per Ion, biit' onfy Gods' "Jfy'frW^ <5f the M*#i?- 
 f eft at ion of his Power, wMch the^fey Itiha&iteJ an Hu- 
 man Perfon ; *. e. the Perfon of /#&$ C#r//?. 
 
 So God Inhabited eft lnfyiredi\& Prophets, 'Afofiks, 
 &c. but this d^ddtBrt^^^^b|^ftc^ffljSQ 
 But he infoired Chrift in & Hiefar -Devfee >' 
 
 A *r*"^ tJ (V 4 %* 
 
 The Degree' fignifies nothing as to the being made 
 F/<?/&. No Inspiration or Inhabitation of God, or any 
 thing kfs than M ^fmperfonatiort^ /7 1 ^. v taking our 
 Flefti into his own Perfon, fo kis 5 ^o be one Per/o^ 
 with him^ nothing lefs than tftis can make him to 
 be Flejh. 
 
 And it is certain that nothing can be made Flejh 
 but a Perfon. A Manifejlation of God, or of any 
 thing elfe, is nothing in it felf; it is but our man- 
 ner of Apprehending what is manifefted or fhewn to 
 us : And to talk of this being made Flefh, is the 
 grofeft Nonfence and Contradi&km : Therefore if 
 there be but One Perfon in the Trinity ( as this Sett 
 of Socinians do hold) then the whole Trinity was 
 made Flefh ; and then they muft come to Muggleton, 
 who fays, as they do, that there is but One Perfon 
 in the Godhead, which is God the Father-, and that 
 //<?tvas Incarnate, and really D/W, fo that there was 
 
 * * j 
 
 then no Gody But Muggleton fays, that Elijah go- 
 vern'd in his abfence, Raisd him from the Dead, 
 and Reftor'd him to his-Throne a and then He was 
 GOD again. 
 
 . sVv , -> 
 
 b But,
 
 xvin 
 
 But, on the other hand, if thcr be Three Per~ 
 fons in the Holy Trinity ( as the reft of our Socinians 
 do hold ) But the Second and Third only Creatures, 
 and that the Word (the Second Perfon) was Incarnate <> 
 then they muft anfwcr for their Idolatry, in Wor- 
 fhiping a meer Creature ; and anfwer the Cloud of 
 Texts which require and atteft Divine Honor to 
 be due to Chrift, and Command the very Angeh of 
 God to Wor/hip Him. 
 
 But, to turn again to thofe Socinians who will 
 have but one Perfon in the Trinity, they put this 
 Meaning upon Matth. 28. ip. that we are Baptized 
 in the Name of the Father, and of the Son ( who 
 is the felf-fame Perfon with the Father) and of the 
 Holy Ghoft (who is the fame Perfon with them 
 Both.) 
 
 Again, Matth. 12. 32. if you fin againft one of 
 thefe you lhall be forgiven ; but if you fin againft 
 another (who is the very fame with that one) you 
 (hall not be forgiven 
 
 (IIL) Now, I pray you, compare their Trinity 
 and ours. They make Three in Heaven who 
 arc not only Three, but may be Threescore, and 
 yet aU but one and the felf-fame Perfon. 
 
 We acknowledge the Three in Heaven, whom 
 the Scriptures tell us of, to be only Three, and 
 that they are Three Perfons. 
 
 One of thefe was made Flefb, the other not, 
 yet they will not allow them to be different 
 Perfons, but that ffe who took Fleft, and He 
 
 who
 
 XIX 
 
 who did not take Flefti were the fame, or that 
 
 1 *. 7" 
 
 they were not Two. 
 
 Thefe are the Men who cry out upon My- 
 fteries; and pretend to Explain their Faith wholly 
 by Reafon and Demonftration, and to make it eafie 
 and intelligible to the meaneftUnderftanding/ 
 
 Befides, they differ more (if more can bej be- 
 twixt one another, than they do from us. What 
 greater difference can ther be concerning the 
 Objeft of our Worjhip than one to make it GOD, 
 the other but a Creature* As it is among the So- 
 cinians, in their Opinion of the Second and Third 
 in the Holy Trinity. What greater difference, than 
 for one to fay they are Perjons, another no Per- 
 fons* One to fay they are Actor able ^ the other not* 
 Muft not one of thefe think the other Uolators ? 
 And the other think them Profane, and Erroneous 
 in Faith, who deny Divine Honour to whom it 
 is Due? 
 
 (IV.) We acknowledge a Great and Sublime 
 Myftery in the Holy Trinity of GOD. That is a 
 Myftery to us, which exceeds our Underftanding. 
 And many fuch Myfteries ther are, to us, in the 
 NatureoiGod which we all acknowledge; kFirflCaufe 
 without a Beginmng* A Being which neither macfe 
 it felf, nor was made by any other ! Infinite with- 
 out Extenfion ! In every place, yet circumfcrib'd in no 
 place,'*. Eternal and Perpetually Exiting, without any 
 Succeffion of Time\ a Present, without Paft^ or Future ! 
 And many other fuch nn- Explainable, wi-Intelligible^ 
 
 b 2 Incom-
 
 Inccmfrekenfible Myfteries; which yet hinder not 
 our Belief of a God. And therefere not being a- 
 blc fatty and r/<frfr/K to explain the Trinity, which is the 
 very Nature of God y can be noReafon for us to rejeft 
 fuch Revelation which God has given us of Him- 
 fe]f. Yet do we not want feveral Shadows and 
 Resemblances of one Nature communicating it fclf 
 to many Individuals, without cither a Multipli 
 cation or Divifwn of the Nature. We fay that 
 the Soul is aft in all, and all in every fart of 
 the /to^;yet that the Soul is neither Multiplied 
 nor Divided among the feveral Members of the So- 
 <#. It is impoflible for us either to Explain this, 
 or to D.e*y it ; for we feel it to be fo, though 
 it is wholly 'unconceivable to us how it can be.. Now 
 if the 6y?#C;whicn <is i but an Zw^ge of God, at an 
 Infinite diftance, . can Communicate it felf to fe- 
 veral Members^ without breach of its Vnity why 
 fliould it be Impoffible for the Etet Wand Infinite 
 Mind to Communicate it fclf to feveral Per fans , 
 without brea<pfr of 'its Vnity ? I will be bold to fay^ 
 you will not find fo neair a Parallel in Nature 
 whereby , tp; conceive of God-s Eternity y or his 
 Infinity, as this, and a great many more, whereby 
 we may conceive of His Trinity and Vnity, by 
 what we feel in our felves, and fee in a thoufand 
 things that are before us. We. fee Extenfion not 
 Divided but ViftinguijVd into its three D'menjiqns ^ 
 
 and Communicating M "*' whole Nature to each of 
 
 , 
 
 l-.\x'A' 'f-'^' v;Hj".
 
 XXI 
 
 the -Three, for Each is Exttpfion* and yet there 
 as butotie Extenfion iarjall tljfc.r^e. ,\\ 
 
 The $Wr & ;ttdl ^Divided ' becwiVt -Tints' fefcefcfcl 
 Faculties j they reftiain perfectly tfiftingttijh V,j though 
 not divided finw> one another .: To >ftn/krjlan3l 
 wtet is pvejentj^ a quite i di&atan* t/fairig from 
 Remembrirtg^h&t is ^tf/?:; and to: ite^. or W&M,, 
 is different from, both d cbdfc V'ijrct ttefo ^ Tliree 
 Fao^rkies^ tfe Undsrfttindingi the vMewery^/^iid the: 
 JF/V/, partake all equally of the ffi>me .Sfir2. 
 
 i/gA/ and //ra/ are fo different, that fome are 
 capable of the #e, who are not of the Other ; 
 and yet they are not Divided in the Sun ; but 
 flow equally and naturally from it without any 
 Divifion of its Nature. 
 
 I fay not that any of thefe Parallels do come 
 % up to the full explanation of the Communication 
 of the Divine ' Nature to feveral Perfons y without 
 any Divifion or Multiplication of the Nature. But I am 
 fure they take away the ContradiRkn alledged to be 
 in it, while we fee the fame J)i faulty in our own and 
 other Natures, which we can as little Explain, 
 
 (V.) But inftead of folving this difficulty, the So- 
 cinians have made it a downright and Irreconcilea- 
 ble ContradiSion. They would have Three to be 
 One and the felf- fame Per/on. This cannot be fav'd 
 from a Contradiction* They acknowledge the Three 
 in Heaven the father, the Word, and the Spirit. If 
 they are One and the felf-fame Person, they cannot 
 be Three. If they are one Nature and feveral Per-
 
 xxii 
 
 font; this is a Difficulty, it is a Miftery] but it is no 
 Contradiction, bccaufe they are not One and 
 Three in the fame refpeft; for that is neceffary to 
 make it a Contradiction. In one Refpeft, that is of 
 their Nature j they are 0ffe$ in an other Refpeft, that 
 is, of their Perfons, they are Three. But if they 
 are One in Perjon, as well as in Nature-, and yet 
 are 7%r0* (as thefe Socinians do confcfs) then they 
 are Three and Owe, in thcfelf-fame Refpeft, which 
 is a full Contradiction. 
 
 h fans 
 .^'^ 6r ^vA>
 
 ZXUI 
 
 '*$>;' : w'- T H E '55,^^1 
 
 Second LETTER, 
 
 Puts our 
 
 Englifh UNITARIANS,.! 
 
 T O 
 
 .;-) 
 
 vi> Z) E F E N D Themfehes. f 
 
 And ftiews they are not 
 
 CHRISTIANS. 
 
 17. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 I Have received yours Dated the $th Inftant, 
 wherein you Defire a Setond Letter from me 
 concerning the Socinians. or Vnitarians (as they 
 call thcmfelves) And you tell me how much you 
 have been Difappointcd as to the IfTue of the Fir ft y 
 which you Defir d from me : That you were made , 
 believe by thofe Socinians of your Acquaintance,, 
 that they were as Ready to Defend their own Prin- 
 ciples, by Reafon, as to object againft others ; And , 
 that they wou'd Immcdiatly give you an Anfwerv 
 to any thing upon that Head, provided it were, 
 Short and Clear. You tell me, that they object no-- 
 thing againft my firft Letter, upon euher of thefe
 
 Accounts : And yet that.no-y in three Years time, 
 you can get no Anfwer from them, tho' you have 
 been made Daily ^o Expert it. Sir, this is no fur- 
 prize to qic, this is what I tt>ld you, at the begin- 
 ning, wou'd be the Event of it. I told you, that 
 men of leaft Reafon, were the greateft Pretenders ; 
 that many can Apprehend an Objection, who have 
 not Depth of Reafon enough to fearch into the 
 Solution. Therefore Otyefting is the Eafier Task ; 
 
 according to the Proverb, that A F may, As^ 
 
 more Queftions than a wife man can Anfrter. Therefore 
 I told you, that thefe fort of Men wou'd never En- 
 durc to have the Tables turn'd upon them, and be 
 put to Defend themfelves That when they fa\v 
 more Contradiction amongft themfelves than they can 
 Pretend amongft us: And the Difficulties which they 
 Objed againft our Hypothefis, return ten times more 
 Monftrous and ManyfoU againft their own, they 
 wcm'd be Silent, and at laft, Mode/I. 
 
 rvi f> \ n \ i 
 
 Therefore lince they have worn out your Pati- 
 ence, and thlt you are now out of Hopes of having 
 any Anfwer from them, you are Provok'd to pur- 
 fuethtm ; and defire, to know from me how far they 
 
 " a " ju '""- ^ fpcit f our 
 
 Bdt I muft firft Enter my Proteft againft their aT- 
 fumipg.the Natne of Vnitariam : For tho' they Pro- 
 fcfs thcVnity, ofGp'J (whence they take that Name) 
 yet they Pirdfef^'irnot more than all Chriflians do: 
 Neither can they avoid; t^at Name 'which they 
 
 wou'd
 
 XXV 
 
 wou'd render fo odious, of Trinitarians ; for they all 
 hold a Trinity as well as we. And which is worfe, 
 Different forts of Trinities, and Contradictory to one 
 another, and to themfelves, as is (hewn in the firft 
 Letter. Buc however, they will have themfelves 
 known by the name of Vnitarians, and us of Trini- 
 tarians, and fo let it go. For we contend not about 
 Names, but Things. Yet this Precaution was Ne- 
 ceffary, left they fhou'd take advantage of Words, 
 or others be offended. 
 
 And now I come to Anfwer Direftly to yourQue- 
 ftion. And I think, That our Englifh Vnitarians can in 
 no Propriety, be calld Chriftians; that they are 
 more Mahometans than Chriftians ; and greater Ene- 
 mies _to Chriftiartit} than the Mahometans. Laftly 
 I will fhew, that they are not own*d as Chriftians , 
 even by thofe they call their Brethren, the main 
 Body of the Vnitarians or Socinians in Chriften- 
 dom. 
 
 ( I. ) Firft, That they are not Chriftians. Chrifti- 
 ans arc fo call'd from the God whom they Wor- 
 fliip. And therefore thefe who think Chrift not 
 to be God, nor Worfhip him as fuch, with Divine 
 Honour, they cannot, in any Propriety of Speech, 
 be call'd Chriftians. 
 
 For it will be allow'd me, on all hands, that 
 to Denominate a Man truly a Chrift ian, it is not 
 enough that he believes ther was fuch a Man as 
 Chrift, for that is acknowleged by all the World : 
 Nor is it fufficient to believe no more than what 
 
 c the
 
 xxvi 
 
 the Mahometans Profefs, vi%. That Chrift was the 
 Meffiah, The Word of God, and Inter ce/or with Go^ 
 for M?ff; That be was Conceive/ and Born,Mi- 
 Kaculoufly of a Virgin-, That He was a Trae /Vo- 
 ^e/ fcnt from God^ That He Raisd the DeW, cur'd 
 the Blind, Lame,&t. and wrought many Miracles-, 
 that all He Taught was Truth ; and finally, that 
 the Scriptures both of the 0/</ and A<?B? Teflament 
 are the word of Go/ I fay all this is not fuffici- 
 ent to Denominate a Man a Chriftian, becanfe the 
 Mahometans $X Believe all this ; and their Alcoran 
 does not . JUqfcpiVany to be a true Mufulman, that 
 is :a Believer, who does not acknowlege all this. 
 As you! may fee in ihe Alcoran. Chap. 3, 4 and 5. 
 in,, the Mnglifk Ttanflation of it, 'Printed at London, 
 i<4$, it/^was Reprinted, 1^88. and added to the 
 Second Bart of the new Edition of the Turkifli 
 Hiftory. They who wou'd be further fatisfy'd ,may 
 Confult the Latin Tianflation of the Alcoran by D* 
 Pet. Abbas Cluniacenfis put out by Theodor.BiblianJer. 
 ^i-But in the Chapters above Quoted, and many 
 other Places of the Alcoran, you will fee as High 
 and Honorable things fpoken of Chrift, as you will 
 hear from any of our Vnitarians here in England* 
 And therefore if the Belief of: all 'this be not 
 Sufficient to to* Intitle the Turks and other Ma- 
 hometans to the Name of Chriftians, neither can 
 it Intitle our Englifh Vnitarians to it ; who are 
 $o more Chrijlians thaa thcfe, 
 rtiv , &;! D*;o^rr on yn ;;t!' 01 in^ioffiul j. si 
 
 (II) And
 
 xxvii 
 
 (IL) And from the Affinity betwixt our Vnt* 
 tartans and the Mahometans our Vnitarians do 
 apparently fide with the Mahometans againft the 
 Chriflians ; and Reprefent Mahometans as the true 
 Chrijlians ; and our Chriftianity as mere Paganifm 
 and Heath^nifm^ as I will foew you prefently. 
 
 But they put their words into the Mouths, of o-; 
 thers for Popularity fake; for fuch New Schems when 
 imderftood (and they are Eafily underftood) wou'd ? . 
 as yet, foufid very , Surprizingly here in .- 
 
 gland. ,\.;o\ . >&'' 
 
 Yet all this notwithftanding, when fo fair an op- 
 portunity offered as the Pretence of the Morocco 
 Ambaflfador and the acceptance he found at Court 
 in the Year 1^82. Our Englifo Vnltarians here in Lon- 
 don cou'd notRefift the .Occafion, but Serit an Ad* 
 drefs to him, by two of their Number,a Copy of which 
 I have from Unqueftionable hands, ^nd wherein 
 you will fee how Gently they Deal with Ma* 
 hornet } and the Alcoran, both of which they Vin- 
 dicate, and prefer to our Chriftianity. 
 
 And they have not been idle, fince that time, 
 of Promoting their Common Caufe. Secretly 
 and Under -hand, while they were kept Under 
 by the Authority of Laws, aqd Difi-Councenance 
 of the Government. But of bee Years, taking 
 advantage of the Plenitude pf the Indulgence Grant- 
 ed to Dijfenters of f^veral .forts and fizes, they 
 have appear'd PuUickly in Print ; and Indefatiga- 
 bly fill'd the Nation with their; Numerous Pam 
 
 c 2
 
 xxviii 
 
 phlets. And, finding Encouragement, have, at latt, 
 Proceeded, as to Vilifie Chriftianity, fo, in its Place, 
 to Recommend Mahometifm, Under the faireft 
 and mod taking Characters. One of their late 
 Treatifes Entituled A Letter of Refolution concerning 
 the DoRrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. 
 p. 1 8. Reprefents Mahomet, as having had no o- 
 ther Defegn, but to Reftore the Belief of the Vnity 
 of God, which at that time (fays he) was Extir- 
 pated among the Eaflern Chriftians, by the DoRrines 
 of the Trinity and Incarnation. That MAHOMET 
 meant not his Religion fboud be efleemed a New 
 Religion, but only the Reftitution of the true Intent 
 of the Chriftian Religion. That the MAHOMETAN 
 Learned Men call them/elves the true Difcifles of 
 the MESSIAS, or CHRIST-, intimated thereby that 
 CHRISTIANS are Afoftates from the moft Effen- 
 tial farts of the VoRrin of the MESS I AS fuck 
 as the Vnity of God, &c. That Mahumetifm has 
 
 Prevail d fo Greatly, not by Force and the SworJ 
 
 but by that one truth in the ALCORAN, the Vni- 
 ty of God. ] 
 
 Then he Reprefents the Tartars as adting 
 more Ratitionally, in Embracing The more Plaufi- 
 ble Seft of Mahomet (as he translates it from an 
 Author he Quotes) than the Chriftian Faith of the 
 Trinity, Incarnation, &c. 
 
 He woud have us believe, That the Dodlrin 
 of the Trinity and Incarnation was that which 
 Pav'd the way for Mahometifm y by Prejudicing 
 
 Men
 
 XXIX 
 
 Men againft the Chriftian Faith: Whereas the 
 Truth is, that Mahometifm came in upon the 
 Ruins of the Dodtrins of the Trinity and Incar* 
 nation, advanced by the Arians, which Ihook the 
 Chriftian Faith, fo 3S to Difpofe thofe who had 
 forftken it for the Vile Herefie of Arius, to Re- 
 ceive any New Impreflions which were Contra-* 
 ry to it : Infomuch that, Generally fpeaking, 
 where-ever Arianifm Prevail'd, and no where elfe 
 among Chriftians, was Mahometifm Embraced; 
 which was but an Improvement upon the ftock 
 that the Arians had laid down. And the Alcoran 
 is a fyftem of Arianifm. 
 
 He fays, that the Doftrins of the Trinity and 
 bicarnation do hinder the Mahometans, Jews, and 
 Pagans from Embracing of Chriftianity. 
 
 Yes. And the Socinians, and our Englifh Vni~ 
 tarians too. For till they Believe thefe Doftrins, 
 they are not Chrifliam ; Thefe being the Effential 
 Dodlrins of Chriftianity. 
 
 Indeed if we {hou'd Dwindle down the C hri- 
 ftian Doftrin to what they Believe, we fhoudcl 
 foon Gaine them: For then we were Agreed, 
 that is, we fhou'd Ceafe to be Chriflians as well 
 as they. 
 
 If it be true that is faid of a Jefuit, who, find- 
 ing no other way to Convert an Heathen Prince, 
 Reprefented Chrift to him as a Warrior, and 
 Mighty Conqueror, and fo Gain'd him to be Bap- 
 in His Name,- this was fuch a fort of 
 
 Chriftian ;
 
 XXX 
 
 Chriftian as we Ihou'd make, by bringing down 
 the Chriftian Faith to their fizc, Avhom we cou'd 
 not Perfuade to come up to it. 
 
 But I am not now Arguing with thefe our 
 Vnitarians, only (hewing their Principles ; and 
 how much nearer they come to Mahometifm, or 
 Paganifm, than to Cbriftianity. 
 
 And therefore I do not Examine all that moft 
 Notorious Falfe Reprefentation before Quoted, 
 which our Vnitarians have given of Mahomet 
 and his J)oRrin 9 from Divers Hiftoriam^ as they 
 fay, (but Name none of them, leaft we fhou'd 
 Examine them) as that he did not Propagate his 
 Religion By Force and the Sword, tho t be the 
 Profeft Principle of the Alcoran^ and Praffice of 
 Mahomet and his Followers, and is own'd in the 
 Addrefs of our Vnitarians to the Morocco Ambaf- 
 fador, as well as witnefled by the Hiflories and 
 Experience of all the, Ages lince Mahomet. 
 
 This Modeft- Author (or Chibb) affirms, with 
 the fime aflurance, ibid, that the Mahometans 
 call themfelves the True Difcifles of Chrift, And 
 in the fame, p. ,18, he Rpprefents our Modern 
 brifti4nity,^fo he calls the Faith of the Trinity 
 and Incarnation] as no better nor other than a fort 
 of Paganifm and Heathenifm. 
 
 I , ftay not naw to Confute thefe. My P re - 
 fent Eufinels being only to let the World fee 
 what fort of ChriHians our Modern Vnitarians, are: 
 And to give Notice of them, as Scouts amongft 
 
 Us
 
 , XXXI 
 
 Us for Mahomet, whom they have, in fo Great 
 a Mcafure, already owned; ;ahd now openly Pro- 
 pagat his Caufc, Write Apelogys for .him,, and 
 Recommend him in the beft,' Manner that they 
 can, in Odium to the Common Chriflianity : Which 
 they Reprefbnt as much more Vile - } nay more 
 Vile than Mahomet ever Rcp.rcfcnted^ abj: as no 
 Better nor other than a\fort of PAGANISM and 
 HEATHENISM. Therefore theft are Greater Ene- 
 mies to Chriftianity than the Mahumetans. 
 
 If thefe be Chriftians, I /am fore W ate not. 
 But they are Abominable and Detdted, fo as 
 not to be own'd for fo much as Chrijlians-zvzn 
 by thofe whom they fometimes Vouch to be of 
 their own = ; Party-, and Boait in. their. Numbers and 
 Authority. I mean die Socinians ,or Vnitarians'm 
 Poland, Tranfilvania, and other Parts of Chriftendom. 
 Which is the Second Branch of what I Promised 
 and come now to Consider. \ ^ 
 
 (III.; The Great Body of the Socinian Vnitari- 
 ans are in Poland-, and their Metropolis is Cracovia-, 
 There is their Root and Stock, whence Branches are 
 fpread into other Countries. 
 
 And the Cracovian commonly call'd the Racovian 
 Catechifm is their Text-, Publifhed by the Body of 
 them, in the Year. 1609. as the True Standard 
 of their Dodlrin : And is own'd., as fuch, by the 
 Body of the Sodnians elfe where. Therefore I will 
 take my Proofes from thence^ as being more 
 
 Authentic k.
 
 xxxn 
 
 Authentic k. then any Quotations out of their Particu- 
 lar Writers. And thus I frame my Argument. 
 
 Thofe who Deny Divine Worfhip to Chrift are 
 not reckoned Chriftians by the Racovian Cate- 
 chifm. 
 
 But the Englifo-Socinian-Vnitarians do Deny P/- 
 mne Worfhip to Chrift. 
 
 Therefore the Englifh-Socinian-Vnitarians, are 
 not reckon'd Chrijlians by the Racovian Cate~ 
 chifm. 
 
 The Minor is prov'd (to fave Multiplicity of 
 Quotations) from a Book of theirs Printed at 
 London. 1694. Intituled Confederations on the Ex- 
 plications of the Doftrin of the Trinity &c. where. 
 p. 5^. they Exprefs themfelves Plainly in thefe words. 
 We have wrote no Book, thefe Seven Tears, in 
 which we have not been careful to Profefs to All 
 the World, that alike Honour or Worfhip (much lefs 
 the fame) is not to be Given to Chrift as to God. 
 
 The Major is Prov'd from the Racov. Catech. Sett. 
 6. cap. i. in that Printed Irenopoli. 1659. in Oftavo, 
 p. 164. I will Tranflate the words for the fake of 
 the Englijh Reader. 
 
 Qpeft. Qiio-vero padro Queft. In what manner 
 
 Chnfto debemus confide- ought we to Truft in 
 
 re : ? Chrift ? 
 
 Refp. Eo pafto, quo Anf. In the fame rnan- 
 
 Ipfi Deo. ibid. p. 172. ner as in God Himlelf.
 
 XXX111 
 
 ^. Quid vero fcntis de ^. What then do you 
 
 iis hominibus qui Chri- think of thofe men, who 
 
 ftum nee Invocandum believe that Chrift is nei- 
 
 nee Adorandum cen- ther to be Pray'd to, nor 
 
 fent ? Worfliipped ? 
 
 R. Quandoquidem illi A. Forafmuch as thofe 
 
 Demum Chriftiani funt, are Chriftians, who Wor- 
 
 qui Jefum Divina Ihip Chrift with Divine 
 
 Ratione colunt, Ejufque Honour, and do not 
 
 Nomen Invocare non Doubt to call upon His 
 
 -Dubitant facile in- Name, it is eafily Under- 
 
 telligitur, Eos qui id fa- flood, that thofe who will 
 
 cere nolunt, Chriftianos not do this, are not hi- 
 
 ha(9:enus non effe, quam- therto Chriftians, altho' 
 
 vis alioqui Chrifti no- otherwife they Profefs 
 
 men Profiteantur, &Do- the Name of Chrift, and 
 
 ftrinx Illius fc adhaerere Pretend to adhere to 
 
 dicant. his Doftrin. 
 
 And to cut off the Diftinftion of feveral Degrees 
 of Divine Honour ; and that a Le/er Degree of it 
 may be given to Chrift than to God and that that 
 which is given to Chrift^ fhou'd be Relative only 
 to God ; and fo paid Ultimately to God a- 
 lone j By which Diftnftion (of Latria and Dulia] 
 the Church of Rome Pretends to Defend her gi- 
 ving an INFERIOR Divine Honour fo the 
 Ble/ecJ Virgin, and to Saints, and Angels, but all Re- 
 ferr d Vltimatly to God. I fay, the Racov. Catech. 
 does plainly Name this Diftinttion. and overthrows 
 
 d it:
 
 xxxiv 
 
 it ; and Eftablifhes this as a Fundamental Truth. 
 
 That 
 
 Alt Religious Worfhip Ibid. p. 172, 173. Etenim 
 is due only to God: And Cultus Rcligiofusfoli Deo 
 that it is not Lawful! to omnis debetur Exquoap- 
 give not only the Higheft, paret, non modo fummo 
 but the Leaft Degree of Honoris Gradu, fed nee 
 Religious Honour to any Inferior!, qui modo Reli- 
 but God giofus fit, quenquam lice- 
 Arid fays that Chrift is re afficere, pneter Detim. 
 not only Like God, but Ibid. &#. 4. p. 47. Deni- 
 Equal to God in the f e quia etiam Imperio ac 
 _2 n . j n Suprema in omnia Poteftate 
 Supreme Power and Go* De similis> imo ^ qualis eft 
 
 vernment of All things : Effeftus Non Solum aa- 
 
 That he is riot Ollly tem eft Filius Dei Unigeni- 
 
 the Only Begotten Son of ^ s e ' us f ^ it etiam jam tum 
 
 God) but God'. 
 
 To whom all things obey as Ibid. p. 100. Cui, ficut Deo, 
 
 untoGod, and to whom Vi- omnia Parebant, 8e: Cui Divi- 
 
 vine Wor/hif ought to be a Adoratio exhibeatun 
 
 7j -j u, rJ M ,* !bid. p. 108. Cum Deus fit 
 
 /W as being God o-ver f ^ Benediaus in fe . 
 
 all Bkfw for Ever. cu i a , 
 
 It is true that the Racov. Catech. does, notwith- 
 ftanding of all this, Deny Chrift to be Partaker of 
 the Divine Nature, and allows Him to be but a 
 Creature. (Sect. 4. c. i. p. 114.) the' it Grants, 
 that God did make Chrift 
 
 moft Like unto Himjelf by Jg* ?'"*Q^ ^ eus 
 
 , y 4, . />/ n- Chiftum fifo, Divin Natu- 
 
 tl* Participation of His Di- ^ ^ G{orix 'p articipa n 0ne S i- 
 
 vine Nature and G lory , and minimum
 
 XXXV 
 
 that, in Chrift, He woud minimum effecerit, in E xjue 
 have all to Worfhip and A- fe , c l1 & Adorari ab omnibus 
 
 J 77' ( If Vellt " 
 
 dore Him\elj. 
 
 That He C ommunicated JiJroS* '7. Siquidemipfe 
 
 s>i /i rr- r- Deus Divmam fuam Caeleftetn- 
 
 to Chrift His own Divine que Majeftatem cum illo Com- 
 
 and Heavenly Majefly,ana municavit, & ha&enus Unum 
 made him one and the f elf- Bundemque fecum Lffecit. 
 fame with Himfelf- 
 
 I Grant this to be a manifeft Contradiction. 
 It fays that Chrift did and did not Partake of 
 the Divine Nature : And befidcs, it Quite o- 
 verthrows the Diftinftion of Relative and Inferior 
 Worfhip, which it let up. p. 172. 173. againft 
 the Chruch of Rome ; and yet, p. 118. as above 
 Quoted, is forced to make ufe of it, to folve 
 the Idolatry of Paying Divine or Religious Ho- 
 nour to Chrift^ fuppofing Him not to be True 
 God by Nature, but only a Made God^ as thefe 
 Socinians moft Foolijhfy, Blafphemoujly, and Con- 
 tradiftorily do Dream. 
 
 But the ufe I have to make of it, is to ihew, 
 That our Englifh Socinian Vnitarians (becaufe 
 they Deny Divine Honour to Chrift} are Exploded, 
 as no Chriftians, by the main Body of the So- 
 cinians. 
 
 If they fay, That, becaufe of this Difference, 
 they are not to be Reckoned among the Polo-* 
 nian-Vnitaria?is, I have fhewn in the Fir ft Letter, 
 that they Differ as widely, and in Points as 
 Fundamental, among themfelves Here in England-, 
 
 d 2 and
 
 XXXVI 
 
 And that they own as Brethren (to encreafe their 
 Number, and make themfelves more confiderable) 
 thofe whom they have as little Pretence to as to 
 the Socinians of Poland, and other Countries ; And 
 from whom they differ as much, as from thefc 
 in Poland. 
 
 In the next Place, when they come to boaft their 
 Antiquity, and to rid themfelves from the Scandalous 
 Imputation of being an Vp-ftart HEREST, and 
 contrary to all Ages of Chriftianity ; and from be- 
 ing fuch a Contemptible Number, in this fmall Cor- 
 ner of the World, our miferably diftradted and 
 divided Ifland, which in the time of our Late Schifm 
 of 41 produc'd, like Egypt, upon the Over-flow- 
 ing of the Nile* monftrous Herds of Heterogeneous 
 Herefies; among whom were thefe now reviv'd 
 Semi-Avian^ Semi-Socinian, Englifh Vnitarians, the 
 Foundation and Rife of Quakers, Muggletonians, and 
 vile Puddle of our Seftaries 5 among .whom John 
 Bidle not the leaft then arofe, a School-Ma/ier in 
 Glocefter, now own'd by our Englifh Vnitarians, his 
 Life written with great Pomp, and his Blafphemous 
 Work* re-printed, and put amongft the Volumes of 
 the "Unitarian Tufts, now freely Publifb'cf and o- 
 penly Difpersct, to poifon the Nation, I fay, when 
 this Novelty and Paucity of our Englifh Vnitarians 
 is objected, then the Socinians of Poland, Tra??filva- 
 vania^ and all other Parts are muilered up, S.oci- 
 nus is Magnified, and Arius too is broughc in Aid, 
 and the numerous Council ac Ariminum is much in- 
 
 fiftcd
 
 xxxvii 
 
 fifted on, and more ancient Heretic^ are inlifted 
 to fhew the Antiquity and Vniverfality of the Englifh 
 Vnitarian Creed : 
 
 But when prefs'd with the different Tenets of thefe 
 or any of them, then they are All thrown off, and 
 Difown'd, and as hard Words given them, by our 
 Englifh Vnitarians^ as by any other their Adver- 
 fanes whatfoever. 
 
 Then they take Pains to Ihew, and brag of it, 
 That they (the Vnitarians of England) are not only 
 dilown'd j but that they wou'd be Excommunicated 
 by the Vnitarians of Poland^ if they , were there. 
 
 See the full Confeffion to this 3 in that mofl celebra- 
 ted Book with them which bears this Title. A Brief 
 Hiflory of the Vnitarians, catted alfo Socinians. This 
 was Printed, and induftrioufly Difpers d Gratis, in 
 the Year i68p. And Re-Printed, with Additions, 
 Anno 1691. There, in Anfwer to A&.y. 14. and 21. 
 p. 33. ofthe 2d Edition., They confefs in thefe Words. 
 The Polonian Vnitarians were fo zealous in this Mat" 
 ter, that they Excommunicated and DepofeJ from their 
 Mini/try fuch of their own Party^ as denyed that Chrift 
 was to be Pray J to, and wor/hippeJ with Divine Worfhip. 
 This had bad Fffeffs. Therefore the Vnitarians of Tran- 
 filvama were more moderate, they admitted to the Mr-- 
 niflers and Profejfors Places, thofe that rejected the In- 
 vocation and Adoration of Chrift ; But obligee/ them, 
 under their Hands, not to fpeaf^againfl Worjhippi?ig or 
 Praying to the Lord Chri/i^ in their Sermons or Lectures. 
 Thofe Vnitarians that rejeff the Invocation of Chrift,
 
 xxxym 
 
 fr/; 6cc. And (a he goes on, in Fa vour of thefe lat- 
 ter V?iitarians, who rejedt the Invocation t>f Cbrift* 
 
 And by what here themfelves confefs our Englifi* 
 Vnitarians wou'd not be permitted among the Vni- 
 tarians of Poland, vtTranjilvaniai or indeed, in any 
 other Part of the Chrijtian World, except in England 
 at ' this time. 
 
 And, if Cbrifti anity holds Here, their next Remove 
 will be under Mahomet; to whom they are nearer 
 akin, and with whofe Amba/aJor they have already 
 concerted ; for his Difciples too are Vnitarians, and 
 of as good a Form, as thofe who, very unjuftly, 
 diftinguifh themfelves by that Name, here in En- 
 gland. From whom, 
 
 :>\\ V^i>} 
 
 Good Lord, Deliver this Church and Nation. 
 
 N. B. I have Printed the Addrcfs of our 
 Vnitarians to the Morocco Ambaflador, without 
 any Remarks upon it in that Place 1 , bccaufe all 
 the Allegations there made on their behalf are 
 fully Anfwer'd in what follows. 
 
 Our Englifh Vnitarians fay that the CbriJU- 
 ans borrow d the Notion of the Trinity from the 
 Heathen (See before p. xxx. And the Remarks on 
 my firft Dialogue p. 6.) And yet their Chief Ob- 
 jcdtion againft the Dodtrin of the Trinity, is, That 
 it is fo Abfurd and Contradictory as that neither 
 Jews or Heathens knew any thing of it.
 
 THE 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 C O N T A IN 
 
 ii .'; ':r 
 
 I. *-r*HE Epiftle Dedicatory or Addrefs of the Englifti Uttitari- 
 
 J[ ans to the Morocco Ambaffador y in the Tear 1682. p. iii. 
 
 II. The Socinian Trinity Explained, p. xv. 
 
 _ 
 
 Wherein is Jherfd^ 
 'L.That one Part of our Socinians or Unitarians ?'afo the Son 
 
 and Holy Ghoft to be Perfons, bttt Creatures. t .%< P. xvi. 
 
 ii. Others Deny them to be Perfons or Creatures. ibid. 
 
 iii. Thefe Corned with the Chriflian Trinity, and with Each 
 
 other. p. xviii. 
 
 iv. The Eternity of God as Incomprehenfible as His Trinity. Ther 
 
 are Parallels in Nature to the Latter, hut None to the Former, p. xix, 
 v. The Socinion Trinity is a flat Contradidion, ours but a Diffi- 
 
 culty. p. xxi. 
 
 HI. The Socinians put to Anfwer as well as Qbjedt 
 
 And it is foeTod, 
 
 i. That they are not Chriftians. p. xxv. 
 
 ii. They prefer Mahometifm, and wen Paganifm, to Chriftianity. 
 
 p. xxvii. 
 
 Mahometifm Succeeded Arianifm. p. xxix. 
 
 iii. Our Englifli Unitarians are not Reckoned Chriftians by the Ra- 
 
 covian Catechifm. p. xxxi.
 
 r^-sr 
 
 ERRATA Dial. i 
 
 PAge i $. 1. 4. f. find r. make. p. i<5. Ult. r. the Prefent Cafe. p. 3 a. 1. 3 1. f. Happly r. Ap- 
 ply. p. 3 3. l.i 5. r. This is. p. 34.!. 10. f. come r. came. p. 43. 1. 23. f. Seneca r. Tullj. 
 
 Dial. 2. 
 
 Page 8. 1. 2 2. f. one. r. our. p. 1 4. 1.31. r. feparatp. i6.1. 20. f. dot. r. not. 1. 3 4.r, there, in. 
 p. 53. 1.32.1. Text. 
 
 Dial. 3. 
 
 Pag. 3.1. 9. r. Gaius* p.$.l. 24. r. Gams.?. 42. 1. 12. del. *rf.-l. i.r. <pt\oi^Ti^uv. antepe- 
 nult, r. JJ.VT&. p. 48. 1. 3 i.r. vrdvTM. p. 5 $. penult, r. Concioufnefs. p. 57. 1. 1 1 . r. (34.) CHR. 
 p. 59. margin. 1. ^. r. scnritr/op. p. 60. margin. 1.6. r. ttyuv 2<yrwf. . p.6i. 1. 32. put($9,^) 
 before SOC. p. 65. margin. 1. 1 1. r. inimicus. p. 67. ult. f. Soc. r. As. p. 58 1. 23. r, Firft. 
 
 Dial. 4. 
 
 Page 9.1. 24. r. (think we) p. 16. 1. 20. f. found, r. form'd. p. 17. 1. 1$. f. on. r. one. p. 25. 
 1. 33. f. fumus r. fummi. penult, r. fseculoque. p. 38. antepenult, r. Praeexiftence. p. 49. 1, 19. 
 f. better, r. letter. 
 
 Dial. 5. 
 Page 5. 1. 16. r. as we. . 
 
 rci - Dial. 5. 
 
 Page. i.l. 1 1. r. Objeft. p. 9. 1. 1 4. f. buried, r. burnt, p.i 8.1. 4. r. things, p. 3 1. 1. 3. f. Judg- 
 ment r. Government, p. 34. ult. r. Ifai. 53. 1 1. p* 39. 1. 18. r. qnos. p. 40. 1. 1 9. f. Face r. Faft. 
 p. 42. 1. 24. f. Inticemencs. r. Incitements, p. 44. 1. 27. r. Courtiers, p. 4$.!. 10. f. Sting, r.. 
 Skin. 1. 1 8. f. of r. off. p. 47. antepenult, r. as the. p. 48.!, 6. r. Repentance. 1, b'. r. lean. 1. 20 
 r. if to. 1.38, r. to God.
 
 
 Introduction. ; ; J' 
 
 SOCINIAN. mr ^f A VE you Read the Book I gave 
 
 you, Intituled, A brief Hiflory of 
 the iJnitArianS) called alfo Soctni- 
 ans? 
 
 CHRISTIAN. I have. And I know it to be the Ce- 
 lebrated Book of your Party. Which therefore you have 
 Printed and Re-printed often, in feveral Volumes^ fince 
 the Year 1687 when you fir ft did Pubiifh it. And 
 you have fince fully employ 'd the Liberty given you of 
 Propagating your Principles openly, and above-board. 
 Whereby you have Gain'd too Plentiful a Harveft among 
 thofe who, fince they muft have fome Religion, delight 
 in that which is fartheft from the True. But your Sue- 
 cefs has been moft among thofe who had not Leifure 'or 
 Learning to Examin your Pretences-, for whom this Book 
 is Calculated, in a Ihort, eafy and plaufible Turn to fe- 
 veral Texts of Scripture ; which they who love not the 
 Trouble of Examining y are Pleas'd fhouPd be True, think 
 it Sufficient for them ; and fo Reft fatisfy'd. 
 
 B It
 
 The Fir/I D IALOGV E. 
 
 It is a Transition and a Compend, yet with Improve- 
 ments, of Larger Socinian Treatifes wrote in Latin, in 
 the fame Method, of Anfwering the feveral Texts of 
 Scripture, in the Order of the Books as they Lie, from 
 Genefis to the Revelation ; which are brought to Prove 
 the Chrijlian Doctrines of the Holy Trinity, and the /* 
 c am At ion of the Second Perfon, which is Chrifl. 
 
 And this is the True and only Method to Determin 
 this Controverjj ; becaufe thefe Doclrins are Difcover'd to 
 Us, only by the Revelation which is given of them in 
 the Holy Scriptures. So that the whole Queft ion is, Whe- 
 ther they are Revealed there, or Not ? 
 
 And the way to know this is Twofold. F/>/?, from 
 the very Words of the Scripture it felf. Secondly, from 
 the Current Senfe of the Church in thofe Ages' where- 
 in the Scriptures were wrote, and Downwards; which 
 is, at lead, the beft Comment upon the Scriptures : They 
 who learn'd the Faith from the Mouths of the Infpir^d 
 Writers themfelves, and Convey'd their Writings down 
 to Us, being the moft Capable of any to give us the 
 true Senfe and Meaning of them. 
 
 And in both thefe Refpe&s you pretend to have the 
 Advantage. Not only in your own Interpretation of the 
 Scriptures : But you fay likewife, That your Dotfrin was 
 the Primitive Dotfrin of the Church ; and Ours Intro- 
 duc'd as a Novelty and Corruption afterwards. 
 
 We will Difcourfe upon Both thefe Points, in their 
 Order. But firft let me ask you a Queftion, in the fame 
 Freedom of Converfation which we have always Us'd ; 
 and that is, Whether your Conviction or Scruples Began 
 upon either the Vn-certainty of the Script ure-Expreffions 
 themfelves, or the Senfe of the firf Ages of the Church ? 
 But, on the other hand, is not this truly the Cafe, That 
 you thought thefe Doclrins Irreconcilable to your own 
 Natural Reafon; And therefore by no means to be Ad- 
 mitted, let the Words of the Revelation be never fo Po- 
 
 ptive
 
 The Firft DIALOGUE. 3 
 
 ftive, or the Testimony of Antiquity never fo Clear in the 
 Matter ? And therefore that you were Oblig'd to Turn and 
 Wind thefe the beft you CouM, and to Force them to 
 Comply with your Hypothefis ? 
 
 SOC. I will not Deny, but that, if ther were no 
 Difficulty in Apprehending how Three can be Ove, or God 
 cou'd be Afafl, I fliou'd without more ado, Acquiefce 
 in fuch Texts as thefe, That thefe three are one ; That 
 the Word, WAS God; And that The Word WAS made Flefh. 
 But, I fuppofe you will Allow me, That where ther is 
 Manifeft Contradiction, we muft Turn the Senfe of the 
 Text another way. Will you fay, That we are Oblig'd 
 to Believe CoritrAeb&ions ? 
 
 CHR. No. But we are to be ware, that we think 
 not things to be Contradictions thro* the Weaknefs of our 
 Under ft andings , which are not fo in themfelves. 
 
 SOC. I grant you all that. Therefore if you can Re- 
 concile thefe things from being plain Contradictions, I 
 confefs you will Clear the way very Confiderably towards 
 my Receiving the Texts you bring, in the Eafy Literal 
 Senfe. And likewife for my Joining in the Tejlirnonies of 
 the Ancient Fathers of the Church ; with both of which 
 (I have no Scruple to rell you) we have Trouble enough, 
 to fatisfy our felves, and Ward off the Force of the Argu- 
 ments you bring again ft Us. 
 
 CHR. Therefore if I can fay any thing towards your 
 Satisfaction in this, it will be a good Preparative for 
 what is to follow, that is, the Confideration of the Scrip- 
 ture Texts, and the Senfe of Antiquity in the matter. 
 
 SOC. If you can do that, your" Bufinefs is more than AH Belief 
 half done. And .therefore I fhall be glad to know i 
 ,you have any thing to offer upon that Head. But I muft 
 Caution you not to Trouble me with Subjecting my Rea- 
 fon to faith, and fuch Topicks, with which I have been 
 Teaz?d till I have no Patience left. For I muft tell you, 
 That I cannot Believe any thing, but what I think I have 
 
 B 2 Reafon
 
 The Firji DIALOGUE. 
 
 Reafon to Believe. Elfe, I cou'd not Believe it : And 
 whoever tells me, that I mufl Believe* becaufe I muft 
 Believe, I will not Anfwer him one word more. But 
 look upon him as Abandoned from Common Senfe, and only 
 fit for Bedlam. 
 
 CHR. I readily agree with you, that we not on4y 
 ought: not, but that it is not in our Power to Believe any 
 thing, but what we think we have Reafon to Believe. 
 The Reafon we go upon may not be Good, that is, the 
 Weakmfs of QW Vnder [landings ; but ftill we muft Think 
 it Good, elfe we cou'd not Believe it : For that wou'd be 
 to Believe, what we do indeed not Believe. Every Man 
 has a Reafon (fuch as it is) for what he Believes ; tho' 
 every Man cannot always Exprefs it. My Barber told 
 me fo, may be a Reafon with fome : But they cou'd not 
 Believe it, if they did not Jhink it a Good Reafon. 
 et we But after all this, you will Allow me, That we may 
 t the have good Reafon to Believe the Mutter of Fact of many 
 nyhin*s ma "things, that fuch things are truly fo and fo ; of the Caufes 
 that we to Be- of which, or the Mature of the things themfelves we 
 may be Ignorant to a great Degree; And not able to 
 Solve many Difficulties and Qty8io*s may Ariie from the 
 Nature of the things. We know not the Nature of any 
 one thing under the Sun, but a pojieriore; by Gueffing 
 at it, from the Effetts we fee it Produce. Our Knowledge 
 here, is nothing but Obfervation. We fee Trees Grow, 
 and Produce their Like--, fo of Beafts, and Men. We 
 find fuch and fuch Vettues in Herbs and Mineral, &c 
 But we know not the Reafon of any one thing, no, not 
 of a Pile of Grafs, why of that Colour, Shape, or Vvrtut ! 
 But this we Aflufedly know, not only from Obferv*. 
 ' tion, but from Reafon-, That nothing can Produce its 
 felf. For that would be to- fay, the C^/r-is not before 
 the Effort : It wou'd' be to fuppofe the fame thing to be 
 before it felf . That is, to Be, and not to Be, at tfie fame 
 time, which is the Height of C$tr4di8itot. Therefore 
 
 we 
 
 w not
 
 The Firfl D1ALOGV E. 5 
 
 we are Forc'd, even from plain Reafon, to Acknowledge 
 a frft Caufe, which gave a Being to all other things, 
 and from whom all other things have Proceeded. 
 
 But then, from the fame Reafon, we muft Believe that 
 this Firfl Caufe did not Produce It Self. For that wou'd 
 be the fame Contradiction as before. Neither that it was 
 Produced by any other : For then // would not be the 
 Fir ft Caufe. We muft like wife Believe that this Firjl 
 Caufe had no Beginning', for then it mult have a Caufe ; 
 And there mult be a Time fuppos'd wherein it was not. 
 And if that were fuppos'd, then It cou'd never Be, be- 
 caufe it cou'd not Receive Its Being from /;/ Self r nor 
 from any other. From hence we muft Believe that it's 
 Duration cannot be by Sucsttffiw or Time ; for then It 
 muft have a Beginning. 
 
 Now, how can we Apprehend a Duration without 
 Time ; an Eternity all Prefent together ! A Being that is 
 Self-Exi/tent, neither Produced by Its Self, nor by any 
 other ! Yet all this hinders not our Belief of a frft Cauje 9 
 being forc'd to Confefs it by undeniable Reafon -, tho 7 
 we cannot Solve thefe and a thoufand more Difficulties, 
 and feeming Contradictions, which necefTarily arife from 
 fuch a Suppofition. 
 
 And becaufe yon cannot Solve the Difficulties whrah 
 occurr to you in this fame Incomprehenfible Nature of 
 God, as to the Trinity and Incarnation, you Reject the 
 Revelation that is given of it, in the Holy-Scriptures, and 
 the Current Senfe of the Catholick-Church in the Firfl and 
 all following Ages of Chfiftianit) : And ft rain your Wit, to 
 Turn and Screw thefe to your Purpofe. Which you 
 Confefs you wou'd not otherwife have done. 
 
 SOC. I make a Difference betwixt things Incompre- 
 henpbte, and which Exceed our 'Under ft andtngs, many of 
 which are in the Nature of God, befides thofe that you 
 have Nam'd ; And betwixt thofe Pofitions which are 
 downright Contradictions y for thefe cannot be True. And 
 
 we
 
 The firft DIALOGUE. 
 
 we muft force all the Texts, and all the Authority in the 
 World, rather than admit of them; As that God fhou'd 
 be MM : Or, That Three {hou'd make but One. 
 
 CHR. A Contradiction is only where two Contraries 
 are Predicated of the fame Thing, and in the fame Refpetf. 
 whiich weEx- P r ^ }ree Men, or three Thoufand may make but one 
 prefstheHo-Cawp**7, or one Army: There is no Difficulty in this. 
 
 Now I will Grant you, That it is a Contradiction 
 to fay, That Three Perfons are but One Perfon. But that 
 Three Perfects may be in One Nature is no ContrAditti- 
 on. 
 
 SOC Come let us be Plain. Is it not ^Contradiction 
 that Three Men, (hou'd be but One Man ? 
 
 CHR. By MM here you mean Perfon, in which Senfe 
 it is a Contradiction. But it is no Contradiction to fay, 
 That there may be feveral Human Perfons, in the fame 
 Human Nature. We fay there is but One Human Na* 
 ture. Yet we know there are many Human Perfons. 
 
 SOC. But every Perfon that Partakes of this one Com- 
 mon Nature, is a Diftincl Man from all other Men. 
 And one Man cannot be another Man. 
 
 CHR. That is, one Perfon cannot be another Perfon, 
 which is Granted. And tho' we call each Perfon a Di- 
 ftincl: Man, yet, as I faid, that is only with Refpeft to 
 his Perfonality. For one M* do's not Differ from an- 
 other as to his Nature, but only as to his Perfon. And 
 tho' we allow this common way of fpeaking as to Men, 
 to fay, one, two or three Men, &c. when it is ftriftly 
 true only of their Perfons: Yet that is not allowed as to 
 the Per/bits in the Divine Nature, to fay, one, two, or 
 three Gods ; becaufe it might lead Men into the Notion 
 of Polytheijm, to think that there were more than one 
 Divine Nature. Therefore there is Reafon to Guard 
 our Expreffions of God, with much more Care and 6'/r#7- 
 nefs, than when we fpeak of Men. But if you wou'd 
 Allow that feveral Ptrfons might Partake of the one Di- 
 vine
 
 TheFirfl DIALOGUE. % 
 
 vine Nature , as you allow they do of one Human Na- 
 ture, our Difpute wou'd be at an end, as to the S 
 ftance of it ; Tho' ftill we have Reafon to Infift upon 
 the Nicety of the Expreflions, for the Caufe told before. 
 
 SOC. This is Nicety and Philofophy indeed fomewhat 
 In- comprehenfible. 
 
 CHR. You make that no Obje&ion in our Contem- 
 plation of the In-cowprehenfible Nature of God, as in 
 the feveral Inftances before given. All that you Re- 
 quire is, That tliere fhou'd be no Contradiction.. 
 
 SOC. That is True. But ftill I think it a 'Contradi- 
 ction that feveral Perfons fbou'd not be feveral Men. 
 And tho' the Divine Nature is Infnitly Exalted above 
 the Human ; yet what is a Contradiction in one Nature, 
 muft be fo in Another. 
 
 CHR. I have before told you in what Senfe feveral 
 Perfons may be Call'd feveral Men, not with Refpeft 
 to their Nature, but only of their Perfonalities, which 
 may Differ, but their Nature cannot ; for it is the Same 
 in AH. So that here is no Contradiction, tho' it may be 
 a Difficulty. 
 
 But now, as to your other Pofttion, That what is a 
 Contradiction in one Nature muft be fo in another, I 
 
 .,, , u ' i 
 
 think It Will not hold. charg'd in 
 
 SOC. Why? A Contradiction is a Contradiction* where- an Y *&* 
 
 J we do not 
 
 ever It IS. Undcrftand. 
 
 CHR. That is True. But that may not be a Contra- 
 diction in one Nature, which is fo in Another. 
 
 SOC. I do not underftand you. Explain your felf. 
 
 CHR. Let me Ask you a Queftion, Is it notaGw- 
 tradtftion that a Man Ihould go Two Yards as foon as 
 One? 
 
 SOC. Yes furely. For Two Yards are but One Yard, 
 and Another Yard. And I cannot go Two Yards, till I 
 have firft gone One, 
 
 CHR.
 
 8 The.,FirftDJ.ALOG'V E. 
 
 f >, \\ 
 
 CHR. Now open your Eyes, and Try if you fee not 
 what is at Two Tards diftance from you, as foon as you 
 fee what js but One Tar a from you? You fee a Star, as 
 foon as the Top of the Chimntj. 
 
 Then go to Thought. Can you not Think of Rome, 
 or Cortfltntino'ple, as foon as of the next Street ? 
 
 Thus you fee that what is a Contrajftffion to 'Legs, 
 is None to Eyes, nor to Thought. And the Reafon of 
 this is, the Different Natures ofthefe things. 
 
 Again, Is it not a Contradiction that I fhou'd be here 
 Sitting with you in this Room, and at the fame time 
 fhould be with other Company in another Room ? This 
 is a flat Contradiction to Body. But it is no Contradiction 
 to Soul, which at the fame time is prefent in all the 
 Diftant Parts of the E?$/, according to the old faying, 
 That the Soul is All in AIL and Att t in Every Pan of 
 the Bc'dv 
 
 Lilt UvlAj. , 
 
 Once more. Is it not a Contradiction that Yejlerdaj 
 fliou'd be to D*j, or that to Day (hou'd be to Morrow ? 
 For it wou'd Imply, That the fame thing fhou'd be 
 Pa/I and not Patt, Prefent and not Prefent, Prefent and 
 yet to Come. But with,Garf r all. things are Prefent, ther 
 is no Pa/1 or 'to Come in' Eternity. 
 
 Thus what is a Contradiction t6 Body, is not to Soul', 
 and what is a Contradiction to Time ; is none to Eternity ; 
 and What is a Contradiction with Afr/f, is not fo with 
 G<?df. And the Reafon is, as I have faid, the Different 
 Natures of (hefe things ; and that from a 'Contraction' in 
 the One, : we cannot Infer a Contradiction in the Other. 
 
 From hence I may Conclude, That tho' it were a 
 Contradiction ,'m Human Nature, for feveral Perfbns to Par- 
 take of the' fame Nature, and not to be feveral Me 9 
 that is, feveral Natures,, as well as Per fans. Yet it will 
 not foliow,\f hat r it ' is ft) in the Divine Nature. Which 
 is Infaitfy more k Diftant and Diver fe from Our Nature, 
 than the Motion of Sight or Thought is from that of 
 
 our
 
 The Firfl DIALOG VE. $ 
 
 'our Leggs', than Body is from Spirit 9 or Time from Ettr* 
 r.ity. And if it be Impoffible for all the Philofophy and 
 Definition in the World, to Give to a Man that is Born 
 Blind, any Idea whatfoever of the Nature of Sight ^ or of 
 its Motion ;m to Reconcile its Going two. yards as foon 
 as one from downright Contradiction ; For he cannot but 
 Compare it with that Motion which he only knows, of 
 Leggs or Arms : Or, if we cou'd Suppofe a Man with- 
 out Thought, it were Utterly Impoflible to Reconcile to 
 him the Progrefs of Thought, from the moft Palpable Con- 
 tradictions : How then fhou'd We Object Contradictions 
 in the In-eomprehenfible Nature of God, from Comparing 
 it with our Frail State of Flefb and /00^ / Therefore I 
 think we may fafely Depend upon this as a Standing 
 Conclusion ; That we cannot charge that as a Contradicti- 
 on in one Nature, becaufe we find it fo in another, un- 
 lefs we 1)nderftxnd Both Natures perfectly Well. And 
 the Divine Nature being Allow'd on all hands, to be 
 In-comprehenfthle, Confequently we cannot Charge any 
 thing as a Contradiction in it, becaute we find it fo in 
 our Frail Nature. 
 
 And we find it thus in many other things. It is com- 
 mon to fay, This is Impoffible, it is a Contradiction, But 
 being Explained to us, we fay, now it is Eajy 9 1 did not 
 Vnderftand it before, I took it quite Wrong, Therefor 
 we muft V#derjla?.d things firft before we charge Con- 
 tradictions in them. It is our Ignorance often which makes 
 the Contradiction. As of the Blind Man Judging of Colours, 
 or of the Nature Sight ^ and Comparing it with his Walking: 
 
 SOC. It is Eafy to Apprehend the Difference between II 
 Walking, Seeing) and Thinking. The very Words do Ex- of the word 
 prefs it. And it wou'd be Improper tq Confound the ^ff 
 Words, to Call Walking Seeing ; or, Seeing^ Walking, &c. P ' y 
 Therefore, tho' Doubtiefs ther are many things in the 
 Divine Nature, which Infinitely Exceed our Under- 
 ftanding ; yet, for that Reaion, we ought not to Apply 
 to God thofe Terms which are Proper only to our felves ; 
 
 C as
 
 : Cor. 
 
 ro The Firft DIALOGUE. 
 
 as the Word Perfo^ to fay there are, three Per fans in 
 the Godhead. This raifes the Contradiction we fpeak of: 
 Becaufe we cannot Comprehend how Three Perfons can be 
 One, incur Nature. 
 
 CHR. I told you before, That we do not make three 
 P erf on s to be one Perfon, but one Nature. And tho' 
 the Motion of the Feet is calkd Walking, of the Eye 
 is call'd Sveing, and of the Mind is Call'd Thinking: 
 Yet to a Man Born Blind, the Word $*?/'# is alto- 
 gether Vn-intelligible. He knows Nothing at all of it. 
 And you cannot give him any Idea of Light, or Colour , 
 but he muft Apprehend it as fomething that may be Felt, 
 heard, SmelPd, or Tafled. For he Cannot Conceive but 
 according to the Se*fes that he has. Now if ther 
 were Words which Cou'd Exprefs the Nature of tied 
 Properly, or as He is known to the Angels of Heaven, 
 they wou'd be as Un-intelligible to Us, as the Word See- 
 ing is to one Born Blind. The Afofle fa id, That when 
 he was Caught up into PARADISE, he heard VN- 
 SPEAK^ABLE Words, which- it is not Poffible for a Man 
 to Utter: And if they were Uttered, it wou'd be Im- 
 pojfikte for Us to VnderpAnd them. 
 
 SOC. I can Readily allow, that we muft fpeak of 
 God, in Words not Strittly and Properly adapted to Him, 
 but Borrow'd from Terms we Ufe among our felves, 
 As when we call God Father,, we mean that we have 
 our Being from Him ; but not in that Manner as a 
 Son is Begotten by his Father among Men. 
 
 CHR. And thus we underftand the word Perfo*. 
 As when Chrifi is callM The Exprefs Image of His 
 (God's; Perfon. We mean fometbing of a quite Diffe- 
 rent Kind from the Perfon of a Man upon Earth. But 
 k is a Word we muft Ufe, dice the word Bother , be- 
 caufe we have no other Word to Exprefs it by. 
 
 And we find what we call Perfonal A&ions, attri- 
 buted to the FAtker, to tfee Sox, and to the Holy 
 Spirir, as the One to Send, the Other to be Sent. The 
 
 One
 
 The Firft DIALOGV E. u 
 
 to Proceed from the Other. The One to Beget, 
 the other to be Begotten of Him. The One to take 
 -F/e/Zj and not the other, &c. Therefore we call thefe 
 Perjoxs, becaufe we find Per fond Actions attributed 
 to them. And I cannot fee but you have full as 
 much Reafon to Quarrel with the word Father, as the 
 word Per Jon ; they are both Scripture-Words. Therefore 
 keep the word Perfon, till you can find another word 
 more Proper, Still Remembring that thefe are words only 
 ad Captum, in Condefcention to our Capacities, and ther- 
 fore not to be taken Strictly and Properly as to God. And 
 from a feeming Contradiction that may Appear in thefe 
 things, as they Relate to Mev 9 we muft not Infer a CW- 
 tradictton in God, to whom thefe words are but 1m- 
 properly Apply'd. And v/hofe Nature we do not under- 
 {land. And therefore, as I faid before, we cannot Charge 
 a Contraction in Him, from what we find fo in other 
 Natures which we do underftand. For we connot In- 
 fer from the One to the Other ^ unlefs we underftand Both ; 
 as in the Inftances before given of the Motion of Leggs, 
 Sight, and Thong ht, of -Boeiy and Soul, of Time and Eternity 
 
 60C. But is it not a Contradiction that the Son fhou'd 
 be as Old as the Father. As you fay of the Perfons in the 
 Trinity. For muft not the Caufe be before the Effect* ni 
 
 ~>&HR. This is ftill Meafuring from one Nature to ano- of the ^ 
 ther, when the One we Vnderfttnd not, and can fpeak ^*&f ^. 
 of it only by Allufiop to the Other. Therefore I may iber. 
 fairly Deny your Conference, and fhew that you Argue 
 from a wrong Topic. That becaufe it is a Contradiction 
 betwixt Father and Son among Men, it will not follow 
 that it is fo in God. 
 
 But in this, I can give you a Plain Anfwer, even from 
 Created Matures, which are before Us. For tho' the Cwfe 
 rnuft be before the Effett in Nature, yet not always in 
 Time. Nay Never in Time, in all Neceffary Effects. For 
 where the Effett is Neeeffary to the Ctufe, the Caufe can- 
 not be without it ; and therefore the Effect muft be as 
 
 C 2 Early
 
 12 The Firft DIALOGV E. 
 
 of Ugh Early in Time as theCaafe. Thus Light and He At are 
 ^fsw" Neceffary Efcfes of the Sun ; therefore they muft be as 
 Jur/y in Time as the S#. And if the Sun were Eternal, 
 Light and H?^ wou'd be as Eternal. And yet they both 
 Proceed from the &*#. And the Sun is Before them in 
 Nature, becaufe they Proceed from it ; But not Before them 
 in Time, becaufe they are Necefftry Effefts, and the Sun 
 cannot be without them. 
 
 Now it is not Neceffary for a Man to be a Father. 
 Elfe Every Man muft be a Father. But if a Af*/z cou'd 
 not be a Mf# without being a Father, then he muft 
 be a Father as foon as he wasaM*, And confequently, the 
 Son muft be as Old in TVwe as the Father, tho' in the Order 
 of Nature, he \vouM come Behind him, as Proceeding from 
 him, and as the Effect follows the Cau/e. Therefore tho 1 
 it Cannot be in Human Nature; that the Son fhou'd be 
 as Old as his Father, yet it may be in the Divine Nature. 
 SOC. That is, if the Production- in the Divine Nature 
 be Neceffary. 
 
 CHR. As no doubt it is. For the frjl Caufe muft be 
 a Neceffary Being. And ther can be no Accidents in Him. 
 He is incapable either of Addition or Diminution ; for 
 either wou'd Argue Imperfection* 
 
 iv. SOC. But God is a Spirit. Is there Production or Ge- 
 
 of the Pro- Cation in Spirits? Do they Beget their -Like, as Men do? 
 d2i,ainJjM Qr muft t]VO SPIRITS Join for the Production of a r/;/W ? 
 Or can SPIRITS Beget of Themfetves ? 
 
 CHR. This is ftill Bewildring your Self with the Gom- 
 
 parifon of a Nature you do not Vnderftand, and Mea- 
 
 furing it with a Nature you do Vnderftand, and Inferring 
 
 from the 0/7? to the 0/^r, which will by no means Hold. 
 
 i. But in the Cafe you put, there is fome Light given 
 
 ofthef^ to us j n t ij e Contemplation of our own Soul, which is 
 
 that /wdge of God, wherein He made Man. In our Soul 
 
 we find ther is a Faculty of Vnderftanding a thing, that 
 
 is, Apprehending, or as it were, Sw;^ of it. And this 
 
 Refembles Creation, or bringing things into Being, as to 
 
 Us.
 
 Tbefirft D IALOGVE. 13 
 
 Us. For what we Vnderftand not, is to Us, as if it 
 were not. 
 
 Then when we Vnderttand a thing, and are thus in 
 Poffe/fion of it, we find that our Soul has Another Faculty 
 of Remembring it, that is, Prej'erving its Being, as to Us. 
 For without this, our l^nderHAnding of any thing wou'd 
 lad no longer than the Impreffion of a Seal upon Water. 
 And when the Thought was Pail-, it wou'd be gone for 
 Ever, and we cou'd never Recover it. By which means 
 we couM have but one Thought at a time, But we cou'd 
 not Compare Thaughts and Things, and Injerr or draw 
 Conferences from One to Another. Which we Call Rea 
 foning. Which therefore is Attributed Chiefly to this Fa- 
 culty of the Soul. So that a Man of found Memory, which 
 is the Form in Wills, means the fame in the Conftructi- 
 on of Law, as a Man of found Judgment. 
 
 This Refembles the Afy, or Word of God. Which ^uH 
 Martyr in his AyoL Calls the Retfon of G0af. For the word 
 Ao^^o fignifies Reafon, and fo is ufed, La&. xvi. 2. 
 Rom. iii. 28. xii. i. ii. Pet. ii.' 12 Af/tf^. xvi. 7, 8. 
 Luk. v. 21. and feveral other Places of Holy Scripture. 
 And indeed Reafon, which is the Reflection of the ^//W, 
 is properly calPd the Word of the Mind, as near as an 
 Aftuftott can be made from IWy to Soul. For JfWj do 
 outwardly Exprefs the T^eafomng that is inwardly in the 
 Thoughts', And the Refl&io* of the Mind, is fpeaking , 
 HV^/ to its felf. Every Reflex- Act is a Colloquie. 
 
 When things are thus as it were Created to Us by 
 the Vnderftwding, and Prefotv*d by the Memory, that we 
 may Reafon and Reflect upon them, then they 5 Appear 
 either Agreeable or Difagre cable to Us. We- Contracl: 
 either a Liking or Dff* to them ; That is, We Love 
 or Hate them. And this is th& Operation of a Diftinft 
 F Acuity of the M//i^, which is call'd the H 7 /^ ; and is 
 the Seat of Happmejs or Mifery. To ;?jVy what we 
 , is Plea/are and happinefs j And to be J^'^ to 
 
 what
 
 i-4 The firft 1) I A L G V E. 
 
 J J 
 
 what we Hate, is Mifery and Afflitfion. Then are fe- 
 veral things which we KJIOW, and which we Remember', 
 But they are Indifferent to us, we neither Love nor H.ite 
 them; and therefore they afford us neither Pleafore-fior 
 Trouble. Thefe Ptffions, are Seated in the Will ; and 
 come not, till the Will has Exerted an Act either of Love, 
 or Averfion. Thence arife Love, Pear, >Jcy, Grief] Hepe, 
 Defpair, and all the Pafflons. The- Will is the Seat of 
 all the Paflions. 
 
 This is a Refemblance of the third Per Jon in the Holy 
 Trinity, ^who is therefore calPd the Spirit of Love, and 
 the Comforter. 
 
 Now of thefe three Faculties of the Soul, the Under- 
 
 fandingmzy well becall'd the FATHER Faculty. And 
 
 Ithe Memory may be faid to be Begotten by it. For we 
 
 cou'd not Remember what we did not firft Kjiow. And 
 
 the -Will Refults or Proceeds from both of thefe. For 
 
 we cannot Love or Hate what we do not both Kjmv 
 
 and Remember. 
 
 But in bow many things {hou'd we Err and be 
 Miftaken, if we fhou'd think to Draw an Exaft Parallel 
 betwixt this Generation in the Faculties of the Soul, 
 and the Generation of Bodies ? In that of Bodies y it is a 
 Contradiction the F^f/?fr ihou'd not be Pr/or in T/w^ to 
 the Son. In that of the-&w/, it is a Contradiction the 
 &># fhou'd not be as Old as the Jto^r, becaufe the Soul 
 cannot be without the three Faculties. They are of the 
 Ccnftitution of the Soul : And it cou'd not be a &?#/ 
 without them. Therefore each of - them muft be as OA/ 
 as the other, and all as Old as the Soal. 
 
 SOC. That is, becaufe the words Father -and Son are 
 not Stritffy and Properly belonging to the Faculties of the 
 Soul, only by way of Attufion to the Generation of Ifo//>/. 
 Therefore what is a Contradict ton in the <?/??, is none in 
 other. 
 
 CHR.
 
 The firjl D I A L 06 V R. , 5 
 
 CHR. How Readily you can give this Anjmr in the 
 PtrMSel'cw'mt Body and Soul? And yet how do you flick 
 to gu e the fame Allowance in the Parallel betwixt Mor- 
 tal Man and the In f nit Being ? But you will find that 
 to be a Contradiction in the one^ becaufe you find it to 
 be fo in the other! 
 
 SOC. I grant ther muft be a vaft Difference betwixt 
 the Produffiot* ther is in Bodies, and that in Spirits. 
 They are not of the fame Kjnd. But methinks ther 
 fhou'd be an Exat Parallel in the Production of Spirits ; 
 For tho' ther is Higher and Louver among them, yet they 
 are all Spirit s, and fo of the fame Kjnd. Now fee if you 
 can find an Exaft Parallel betwixt the Faculties of the 
 Soaly andthePerfens of the Godhead. And I will be Con- 
 tent. 
 
 CHR. Think you not, That ther is Infinitely greater 
 'Difference and Difproportion, even in Kjnd, betwixt the 
 Soul of Man and the Eternal Incomprehenfble Almighty^ 
 than ther is betwixt the Body and Soul of Man \ So 
 that you Ask of me what I will no ways Undertake. 
 
 Only I ftiil Infift, that from a Contradiction in the one y . 
 if you cou'd find it, you cou'd not Inferr a Contradiction 
 in the other, becaufe you underftand not B&th the Natures 
 you fpeak of. And what is fpoken of the One, is by way 
 of Attttflon only to the Other. 
 
 In the next Place, the Contradictions you Allege are all 
 by way of Parallel 'twixt God^ and the Bodily Perfonstf 
 Men upon Earth. And fince you have Granted me, that 
 a Contradiction will not lie in the Parallel betwixt the Body 
 and Soul of Man ; I can much more ftrongly Argue, 
 that it will not lie in the Parallel betwixt the Body of 
 Man and God, fo as that a Contradiction in the one fhou'd 
 Inferr a Contradiction in the other. 
 
 But ftill I will go as far along with you as I can. 
 And having Enter'd my P rot eft, that I put nothing of 
 the Merits of the Caufe upon ir, I will go on to (hew 
 
 you
 
 The firfl DIALOGV E. 
 
 you what is no Contradiction in the Fault ks of the 
 Soul. 
 
 It is no Cantrdi&io*, That thefe three Faculties fhou'd 
 he One Soul. And the Soul nothing elfe, that we can 
 . tell, but tkefe three Faculties. T hat- thefe three Faculties 
 ILou'd be all Co.tval as to Time, and yet one Before the 
 other in Order of Nature , as Proceeding the 0#<? from 
 the 0//;er, That they are perfe&ly Diftinct the one from 
 the other, having Different Ohjrtts, and Different Manners 
 of Operation. The -Underftandtng being Converfant about 
 what is Pre/ext 9 the Memory about what is P*J?, and the 
 H 7 /// about ."Low and /&/*. Yet that they all Act in 
 Concert, and no one of tliem can Aft without the other. 
 Tor as the Memory cannot A& but upon a Previous Aft 
 of the *Dnderflanding) and the Will upon the Aft both 
 of the Vnder finding and the Memory, fo even the "tto- 
 derftanding do's not Aft, nor the Memory, without a 
 Concurrent Aft of the Will which Confents to it. So 
 that tho' they Act Diftinct fa yet not Separately. And the 
 6W is not Divided or Multiply* d among them, but the 
 whole Soul Afts in Each and ^// of them. 
 2. SOC. And now you think you have Solv'd all our 
 
 pt the objections as to the Trinity, of three being -one- and one. 
 
 Dirterence .. > j r i_ L ^ / i > T> j- 
 
 s cwixt Fanii- three. And of their being Lo-eterwtl, tho ow Proceeding 
 ties and Per- from the other. But your Parallel will not hold betwixt 
 Faculties and P*r/2vM. 
 
 C7/R. I pretend not to 'Prove any thing by Parallel^ 
 They are but Illuflrations. Nor do I think ther can be 
 any Exaft Parallel betwixt God and any Creature. But 
 if the Objections you bring may be Solv'd by what we 
 can obferve in Created Natures, it fhews your Vvreafow* 
 blenefs to Infift upon fuch Difficulties againft what is 
 RevenPd of the In-comprehenfible Being. Therefore let me 
 hear what ufe you make of the Difference betwixt Fa- 
 xulties and Perlbns in the Perjons Cafe? 
 
 SOC.
 
 The Firft DIALOGUE. 17 
 
 SOC. You know the Difference betwixt SubftaKce, and 
 Subpftence. It is the Latter only makes a Per Jon. And 
 we '-give not different Subpfterices to the Facnlties of the 
 Soul. Therefore they are not different Perfons. And we 
 fay, that three Perfons or Subfftences cannot be ; one Per fan. 
 
 CHR. And fo fay we too. We fay that three Perfons 
 are always three Perfons, tho' they may be one Nature. 
 But let me ask you, can three Sub ft wees be one Swjfa&fe} 
 or three Faculties one Faculty, more than three *'SaBf fie/revs 
 or Perfo&s can be one Perfon? If not, then your Difintfi- 
 on is of no ufe in the prefent Cafe. For the Difficulty 
 of three being one^ and one three, lies as much in the one 
 Cafe as in the other, and all you can fay from this-PArs/r^g 
 piece of -Philofifhy fignifks nothing. For whatever other 
 ufes may be made of it, it cannot help you in this Cafe^ 
 imce one Subpance can no more be Another Sub/lance^ nor 
 one Faculty be another Faculty , than cne P erf on can be 
 another Per (on. > ^ 
 
 SOC.- But why do you not fay three Faculties infteadfay pjfm 
 of three Perfons in God? And then we fhou'd not fo arulnotF <* a<J - 
 much Quarrel with yoa; 
 
 CHR. Becaufe we muft not Aker the Phrafe' of Scftpi. 
 tare, which calls Chrifl the Exprefs Image of His (Father^) 
 Perfort. Heb. i. 5. ^a^x-r^' -^ ^jAc$(^4{ VoiS' the 
 7w^e of His Subffie-fjcs or Personality. f 
 
 For a So, being a Diftinft Perjbn, is -the'7w^-f 6r* his 
 Father's Perfon, but not of his Nature: Becaufe the Sote 
 partakes of the fame Nature, in as full and ample Man- 
 ner as his Father, and is as much and truly a Man, ha- 
 ving the fame Human Nature with his Father : In which Ttr 
 he is Equ&l to his Father $ But Inferior as to his Perfon, 
 The Relation and Subordination between them, is only 
 upon a Perfonal account. As it is among the Perfons' of 
 the H0/y Trinity.. Tho' all Equals Nature, which is but 
 ()/^^. For if we fay ther is not more than One Human 
 N *t ure^ we cannot fay ther is more than one Divine Na- 
 ture, tho 1 feveral Perfons partake of it. 
 
 D Again,
 
 ' 
 
 ! 8 The Fir ft DIAL QGV& 
 
 Again, a Perfon being the moft Compleat and Perfect 
 Subflance, as Subftfling by its felf, and not in Another 
 (like Faculties or Qualities) muft be given to God. Tber 
 are no Accidents, Faculties, or Qualities in- Him.. But 
 every thing in Him is Himfelf. And the Faculties of the 
 5\?0/ are but a RefemhJfyce of the Perfons of G^. 
 
 SOC. How come you to make but three Faculties in 
 ofrheDif- the Soul? You may make three hundred if you .will. 
 ferer.ce be- <yjfoj do not you make every Paflion, a Diftint Faculty ? 
 And fo of thG^ttrib&es^ of God, you may make them 
 all Per fens. One of Wiflom^ Another of ^ufliee, Another 
 of Mercy, Another of Power, and fo forth. 
 
 CHR. The Faculties are the. Powers of the.&w/ it felf, 
 and of perpetual Neceffity to its Constitution. So that with- 
 out thefe the. Soul wou'd not be a Soul. Therefore they 
 are always in the Soul. Not fo of the Pajfioas. They 
 go and come. A Man is not always in 'Joy, Grief, Fear, 
 Jnger, &c. But he always has an Vnderftandixg, a Me- 
 mory, and a W*H> And it is as thefe are Converfant 
 about any Object, that the Paffions arife. The Faculties 
 are the Constitution, the Paffions the : Complexion < ct the 
 Soul. The Comptexiop often Changes. But when the 
 Conftitutiou is Broke, it is Death. And the Complexion 
 arifes from the Confitution. Not t\\s Constitution from the 
 Complexion. 
 
 Now tho' the Pafftons are M4/y and Various, yet the 
 Faculties are but three, and they can be neither wwre 
 nor Le/}. 
 
 < The DifFerence 'twixt thefe is like that of Colour and 
 
 Of Exttn- Di men r lon j n a XJ^^/y. The Colours are *#4#v and .-various ; 
 
 w and the _ J . r J . ~f . 
 
 1 ne Dimensions are but three, and can be neither more 
 nor lefsi That is, Length, Breadth, and Thickmfs. Thefe 
 muft be in every Extension. They are of the Nature of 
 Extenfon, and therefore InjupArahle from it. And tho' 
 thefe three make one Extension-, yet they are perfectly 
 ty? //?,#//& V, tho' never Separated from one another.
 
 the Firft VlALOGV E* 
 
 Length is hot Breadth, and neither of them is Thicknep. 
 Yet no One of thefe can be without the ! other Two? 
 They are Dijlinttly Three, yet Intirely but 0>^. rr They 
 all make up but one and the felf fame Extetipon. 
 
 The Colours Change according to every Variation, of 
 the Light. But the 'Dimensions are . ftill the 'fume, and 
 ftill .Neceffary to the 'Body. Which Alters not in its Na- 
 ture, from the Change of Colours in it. But ; wou'd Geafe. 
 to be a Body, if it were PofTible it couM want any of 
 the three Dimensions ^ For then it wou'd be no longer 
 an Extenpov, thajt is, no more a Body. ' 
 
 Thus we fay of the Soul': It cou'd not be a Soul, if 
 it wanted any of the three Faculties, for they are of its 
 Nature. But the Pafftons may Go and Come, without 
 any Alteration in the Nature of the Soul. The Pafftons 
 fuppofe the Faculties-, ,for the Paffiotis arc an Operation of 
 the Faculties. .But the Faculties fuppofe no more than 
 that we are Capable of the Paffivns, not that they are 
 always Neceffary to .Us: foe fometimes we are without 
 Any. 
 
 And our Blefled Saviour in the Parable of the Sower, 
 defcribing the feveral ways by which the Seed becomes 
 Unfruitful, Ranges them into Three, according to the 
 three Faculties of the Soul, but not after the Pafftons 
 Which are many. Thejfr/ vbas of thofe who Vndierftafid 
 not ; the fecond was of thofe who Retain 'or Remember 
 not ; and the third was of thofe whofe Wills or Affetthns 
 were Corrupted, through the Cares and VKafures of this 
 
 f p - i V 
 
 Life. 1 s ; p T 
 
 Now this Allupon 'twixt the Bo^ and the A//W, 
 \wixt Colours and Dimensions in the B^J and the F^ t h 
 f/^/V^ and Pafflons in the 5fj/^/, will not Come up nor 
 Anfwer exactly in every thing, becaufe of the vaft D//- of 
 fcrence ther is in the Natures of ^o^ and 5/>/r/>, and 
 the Different Manner of their Operations. But tho' they 
 &// in /ome things, yet they' Anfwer in others, and ferve 
 
 D 2 for
 
 The fir ft J)tALQ$V*E. 
 
 for Illustration, And fo much tfye more, becaufe, .while 
 we are in thelWy, weconceive of Spiritual things, even of 
 pur own Soul, in fome fort, after the manner of Body. And 
 if our own Soul,, by which we Move and Act and Think, 
 is fo Hidden from us, that, we cannot Conceive Rightly 
 of it: How much more muft the In f nit and ' In-compre- 
 benfble Nature be Remov'd far above our poor tinder* 
 standing \ Seeing we cannot Conceive any thing of it,' 
 but by Allufion to what we Vnaeffovd here of our fefoes, 
 and other Creatures that are before us. Therefore fuch 
 Allusions are given to us, and God fpeaks to us of Him- 
 felf after the- manner of Men, becaufe we cou'd not other- 
 wife tinder fiand any tjiing at all of Him. Thus Ged a- 
 fcribes Paffions to Himfelf, as Joy, Anger, Grtej, Repen- 
 tance, &c. And we Defcribe Him by what we Call His 
 Attributes, as Power, Wifdom, Goodnefs, Jufice^ &c. And 
 thefe we Conceive to Flow from His Nature. Tho' at 
 the fame time our Reajon tells us, that ther can be no 
 Accidents in Cod, nor any Change in Him. And therefore 
 that whatever is in God, is God: But by the three Per- 
 fans in the Godhead, we mean the Divine NATURE, 
 which Confifts of the three Perfons, as the Srul do's of 
 the three Faculties, and Extenfwn of the three Dimenfh 
 ons, without any Confufun of the Faculties, or Dirien* 
 [ions; or Divifwn of the Sou/, or of 'the Extevfton. As 
 we fay the three Perfons are God, neither Confounding 
 the Perfons, nor Dividing the Subftance. But what we 
 call the Attributes of 'God, are the Different Manners of 
 our Apprehenfion of the Actions of God, and fo zremany 
 and various. As Paffions are in Man, and Colours in Bo- 
 dies. But Colours do not make the Eod^ in which they 
 are, tho" they fuppofe it. And Paffions 'do not make the 
 Soul, tho' they are in it. But the Ftcukies are the Soul, 
 and the L>imenfwns are the Extenfwn. Thus we fay, the 
 Perfons in the Godhead, are God, but we Conceive of the 
 Attributes of G^, after the manner of Paffions in the Soul. 
 
 Tho'
 
 The Firft DIALOGUE. 2 j 
 
 Tho' we know, at the fame time, that the At- 
 lufion do's not, can net -Anfrser. But we cannot Conceive 
 otherwife of God. And thus it is when we ufe the 
 words, Father, Son, Spirit, Per fox, in Relation to God, we 
 muft not fuppofe them to Quadrat and Anfiver exactly 
 to thefe Words as us'd among Men. They are only 
 Allufions, but they are Neceffary, becaufe we cannot o- 
 therwife fpeak of God at all. * ;P 
 
 Hence appears the unreafonablenefs of Inferring a O;;- Thefe a- 
 tradittion-m the Nature of God, from what we find to^fjj*^* 1 
 be fo in the A^/#re of Afo#, and in thefe words as Ap- 
 ply'd to- MM Which is the Topick I have Infifted upon 
 from the Beginning. And I have Illuftrated it by the 
 Gon parifon of thofe Ir- reconcilable Contradictions which 
 muft Appear to a Man Born Blind, in any Defiription 
 pofRble to be given him of the Nature, Motion, and Pro- 
 grefs of Sight. And you connot Help him with any Al~ 
 lupon or Image of it, in any thing that he Under /lands, 
 He can Apprehend nothing Like it, in any manner what* 
 foever, tho' at never io great a Diftance. It cannot be 
 faid he has a wrong or imperfect Notion of it, for he has 
 not, nor can have any Notion of it at all, not the leaft 
 Glimps. Whereas on the other hand, as to the prefenc 
 Subjetf .we are upon, and to which I apply this ; tho* 
 it be impcffible for any Creature to have a Full and 
 Cowpleat APPREHENSION of the Infnit Nature ; yet 
 ther are fch Allufions and Similitudes given us of it, 
 Chiefly in the Soul' of Matt, which is faid to be made 
 after His Image.) as Enables us to have fome fort cf Idea 
 and Aftfrebtiijppto of it, tho 7 we muft ftill fuppofe at ln~ 
 fait Dijhnce,zn& that we Prefawe not to draw Inferences 
 from the .one to the other, from Man to, God. And even 
 as to that Ineffable Myfterj of the Holy Trinity, ther is 
 no obfcure Kefemblance of it given us in the Frame of our 
 own Soul, Confifting of three diftinft Faculties^ as I have 
 before explain'd it. And even in the three Dimenjions 
 
 which
 
 22 The Firft D1ALOGV E. 
 
 which make up every Extenfton, fo far as Body is Capa- 
 ble of fuch a Refemblance. At leaft it folves the Con- 
 traditions you Alledge as to the H. Trinity, when we 
 ice how Three may be One, even in Bodies. Nay that 
 One muft be Three. For Extenfion cou'd not be Exfexfi- 
 on, if it were not three Dimensions. As the Soul cou'd 
 not be a Soul, if it were not Vndsrftanding, Memory and 
 fj 7 /// : fo that the Multiplicity makes the Vaity. Tho' as 
 I have faid, if thefe were Contradictions in Body, or in our 
 Soul, it wou'd not follow it was fo in Goz, becaufe of 
 the Infinite Defpartty of the Natures. 
 
 from JB0.J; to I have faid likewife, That we cannot Apprehend the 
 * Nature of a Spirit, even of our own Soul, but by Al- 
 nV cowfrT/z- ^[/&w to B0^, to fomething Material. Hence fome have 
 s/wnn them Contended that our Soul is Matter, that is, a Bo^. 
 Nay, that God Himfelf is fo.^That ther is nothing but 
 Matter. And yet we find many Contradictions in this 
 Allufion. As what I mention'd before of the Prefexce 
 of a Body which is fo CircumfcrHSd, that it Cannot be 
 in two Places at once. And yet how 0#f and the fame 
 Soul can Aftuat all the Diftant Members of the IWy, 
 without being cither Multiped or Divided among them, 
 is what we can find no Rtfemblance of in Bodies. And 
 yet we cannot frame a Conception of a Son I, without 
 Mufion to fomething Material. And yet air this Not- 
 wuhftanding, we Charge not this as a Contradiction in 
 AW, becaufe we find it fo in Body. Tho all our'. Notices 
 of the Soul comes from the Body. 
 
 ? l rrcfcnc Now to Apply. The Imperfect; Notices we have of 
 the Nature of G^ come from His Works of Creation 
 
 which we have feen. Yet in none of thefe do we find 
 any Refembltnce to His Eternity, Self-exiftence, and Qmni- 
 Prefence, &c. Nay, they wou'd be flat Contradictions^ 
 if Apply'd to any Creature. Yet we Call them not 
 Contradictions in G0< How then can-Mfe call Three and 
 .a Coxtrtdiftic* in G^, tho' \ve found it fo in all
 
 The Firft DIALOGUE. 23 
 
 CreAtures? But when we find it not to be a Contradt- 
 uion, both in the Nature of Body, and of Soul, wtft 
 we ftill make it a Contradifiion in God, whofe Nature 
 we Vnderftavil not ? And for this only Caufe, Rejeft the 
 Plain Revelations that are Given to us of it? 10. 
 
 But pray, let me Ask you what Notion have you u . Vv f s , 
 
 r c * f /< o /- A j think of 7/vftf 
 
 or any o/?/m, of an Angel? Can you Apprehend an j t , every Sfi . 
 Angel, without an VnderjtandiKg, a Memory and a Will ? >. 
 Can you think otherwise of G0d the Father of Spirits, 
 and who made them after His own Image ? Ther can- 
 not be a Thought without thefe Three. For every 
 Thottght is the Act of thefe T/jre*. We have no nea- 
 rer an Ids A of God than an Omnipotent Mind. And 
 whofe Thoughts are Omnipotent. Therefore G<wf muftbe 
 thefe Three. And thefe Three are (W. Our Notion of 
 His Attributes are the A?J of thefe T/?r^, in Mercy, Wif- 
 dom, Pon-er, Truth, Jtsttice, &c. And fince ther is no 
 Accident in God, but every thing that is in Him muft 
 te of His Ejjence, confequently thefe Three are of the 
 Effence of God. And Each of them is God, and all Three- 
 the fame God. So that inftead of this being a Contradi- 
 tiion,\\. wou'd rather be a Contradiction if it were not 
 fo. That is, That ther cou'd be a Thought without what 
 is of the Effence of a Thought, that it fliou'd proceed from 
 Three Jointly, from an TJnderftanding, a Memory, and a 
 Will, each Diftinct from the other, yet all Three, one and 
 the fame Mind. 'So that if we think of God, after the 
 Image He has made of Himjelf (and we can think of 
 Him no other wife) we mult think of a Trinity in 
 
 , . ' IF, ,. 
 
 Unity. 
 
 At leaft, I hope, what I have faid is fufficient to 
 take away all Pretence of Contradiction in the Cafe, 
 fo as to hinder us to believe the ReieUtion GOD has 
 given Us of it. 
 
 . 1 fe<^ u '^i*fl v v -^- v*' *v-^d%^ t^^
 
 24 'The Firft D I A LOGV'E. 
 
 SOC. Whether Gad has given us any Revelation of -it, 
 
 J'ais the Grand ueftio#, which muft be Determin'd when 
 
 .jy, we. come to Examin thole Texts of Scripture which ave 
 
 ^ Aileg'd for it. But we infill it is a. : C0atradtftio, and 
 
 to "be of /- therefore that thefe -Texts mufl not be underftood m 
 
 mai lir;ca:i- that Senfe. 
 
 CHR. li it be not a -Revelatioy, k -mull be an Inven- 
 tion of fome or other. But if it be a Cdtitraditfioff, k. 
 cou'd not be an Invention. For who cou'd , ln-u?t a CW- 1 
 tradtffioH? Or if be CWV, who IVotid do it, with a De- 
 fign to have it pafs upon -the W T orld, and to be /te- 
 6f;Vd among Mankind'* When Men have a Mind to lm- 
 poje upon others, they Contrive their Story-as Plauftble as 
 podibly they can; to be free, not. only -from -ContrAdicti* 
 on , but Otyctiox. 
 
 In the next place, what do's any Man Get -by it? 
 What End cou'd it ferve to fee up fuch a Notion in the 
 World ? Men generally have fome Profpeft of Advantage 
 when they wou'd Impofe upon others, 
 
 r. SOC. Who Invented TrMf-fubftantUtiont Which you 
 
 Theoipftj; jj we n as we think a Contr.idi^io^ that one and the 
 ^K/lS fame B^ fhouM be in many PUcss, at the fame Time. 
 
 CHR, It was not purely an Invention. For I believe 
 that cou'd never have come into the Head of a Man of it 
 felf. It was but Grafting upon fome very high Exprei- 
 fions in the Et/^r/, Concerning the great Mjfttrj in the 
 Holy Sacrament, wgich they wijtoak, and thence were led 
 to take, the words, '"this -is my Bedy, ftriclily according to 
 the -Letter. Whereas they were plainly FigurAtive, and 
 ther^are feveral other bigures in the 'Words of In fit u- 
 tion of tlie Holy Sacrament^ which they cannot Deny, as 
 where the Cup is put for the Wine. Which is the Figure 
 we call Continent pro CW<>tfta, where the thing that Gw- 
 'ttins is put for what is Coxtai*d in it. .And a^ain the 
 Prefent is us'd for the Future. Luk. xxii 20 This Crtp 
 is the New Teflament in my Blood, which is /bed for you. 
 
 Whereas
 
 The Firft DIALOGV E. 
 
 Whereas this was fpoke before His Blood was Shed. 
 There IS is put for SHALL BE, which is another Fi- 
 gure of Speech. Then this Cap is the New Teflament^ 
 another plain figure. Men may Run themfelves into 
 ContradffitwS) in Furfuit of an Argument, but none can 
 Invent a Contradiction. 
 
 SOC. This is the fame we fay of you. That the Contra. 
 diftions you Run into arife from your miftake of thofc 
 Texts which you Allege for the Trinity which we fay 
 you take too Literally. 
 
 CHR. But you cannot fhew the Figure. They are 
 no 'figurative Expreflions. This we fhall fee plainly 
 when we come to them ; So that if ther be a Contrz- 
 diciion, it muft be in the Words, not what we Infer from 
 them. 
 
 Secondly, We put no New Conftruftion upon them, 
 but the fame that was Taught in the whole Chxitiian 
 Church from the Beginning, which likewife I fliall fliew 
 you. Whereas, in the Cafe of ^rtfrjuMaMiattoiti we 
 fhew the Novel Conftruftion they have put upon the 
 Words, contrary to the Senfe of all Antiquity. This is 
 Vn-anfrverably done in Bifhop Cofins his Hiftory of Tran- 
 fubftantiation. 
 
 Thirdly, Ther is no Temptation in the World to fet 
 up the Dottrin of the Trinity. But ther was very Great 
 in that of Trax-fubftatixtio, of Reverence, and even 
 Adoration to the Prisfhood, to think ttiitjfur words Pro- 
 nounc'd by a Priejl fhou'd make God\ 
 
 But Fourthly, ther are Contradictions in Tran-fuhftaati- 
 Ation, which cannot be Alledg'd in the Dottrin of the 
 Trinity : For Example, That I fhou'd D if -believe my 
 Senfe s 9 upon the Credit of a Revelation made to my 
 Senfes. Which is to Believe, and not to Believe my 
 Senfes, at the fame time : If I Believe the Reve/attofJ, I 
 muft Dif-bdieve my Senfes. And yet unlefs I Believe my 
 Senfes, I cannot Believe the Revelation. They who were 
 
 E prefenr
 
 26 The Firft D1ALOGVE. 
 
 prefent at the Institution muft Believe their Senfes, that it 
 was drift who fpoke to them, and that they Heard fuch 
 Words: Yet they muft not Believe their Senfes, that it 
 was Bread and Wine which they Saw, and Tafted ; But 
 that they Eat and Swall&v'd the very Perjon whom they 
 S*rv fit Whole and E/tf/re before them, and who was 
 then Difcourfmg with them/ 
 
 SOC. And do's not the Do&rin of the Trinity Con- 
 trad ift our &77/>j as much as all this ? 
 
 CHR. No. Not at all: It Contradicts none of our 
 outward Settjes. Pray, which of them do's it Contradict ? 
 Is it our Seeing, Taft, or Smelt? 
 
 SOC. None of thefe can Reach to it. 
 
 CHR. No. Nor to our Soul. They can neither Touch, 
 See, nor Smell it. A Spirit is not the Object of outward 
 Senje. Therefore no Contradiction to it. It is Above it, 
 and of another KJnd. But an outward Revelation is an 
 Appeal to our outward Senfes. And without the 7>#/ 
 of our Senfes fuppos'd, \ve cou'd Believe neither Revela- 
 tion nor Miracle Exhibited to our Senfes. And no Mira- 
 cle that ever God wrought, or Revelation that He gave, 
 did Contradict any one of our Senfes, much lefs All toge- 
 ther, For, as I faid, it wou'd be a Perfeft Contradiction 
 to our Believing them. 
 
 And as you Secinians make ufe of this of Tranjub* 
 ftantiation, to hew that Chrijlians Believe Contradictions-, 
 And Compare thofe you fuppofe in the Trinity with this: 
 So the Church of Rome Infills mainly upon this againft 
 Us, why we fhou'd make fuch Difficulty in Believing 
 Tran-fubjlantiation, fmce we Believe the Trinity, which 
 They and Tou fay, Implys as many Contradictions as the 
 Other. 
 
 And I will Add this to what I have faid, That ther 
 is not any thing in Nature, which bears the leaft Re- 
 to femblance or Likenefs to Tran-fubftatiation, that We might 
 be able to frame any fort of Notion of it. Whereas God 
 
 has
 
 The firft D I A L G V E. 27 
 
 has given us feveral AllupoJis and Images of . His Holy 
 Trinity, in as near Proportion as Finit can Bear to In- 
 fnit, chiefly in the Frame of our own -Soul; Whereby, 
 tho' we cannot come to a Clear and Full Perception of 
 His Nature, for that is Impojfible: Yet we fee fo much 
 of Him in the Glafs of His Great ures, as to give us^fome 
 Idea, of Him ; and to folve what is RevetPd to us of 
 Him, from being Contradictions, by Comparing it with 
 the Likenefs, tho 7 Faint, that is found of it in Creatures. 
 But Trav-ftibftantiation is the very Reverfe to Nature ; 
 and all Natural things. Not only Above them, but ftands 
 in Direct Oppofition to them, and leaves nothing CVr- 
 tiin, no not our Senfes. And what then can be Like to it ? 
 
 The Lutherans Endeavour to get Clear of this, who 
 take the Words of Institution, This is my Body, as Lite- 00 
 rally as the Church of Rome do's. But they Deny not wi 
 the Certainty of our Senfes, and own that it is True/?* 
 and Real Bran/, and f^ff* which we See, Smell, and 
 Toft. But then ther is no Refemblance in Nature, nor 
 Ground in Reafon, and as little in Revelation, that fw 
 JBfti/W fhou'd be Con-fubflantiated under the Accidents of 
 0/? of them, and which, are not Accidents proper for 
 the other. In which, tho' ther is not a Deception of 
 the Senfes as to the Brazd and Wine, yet ther is as 
 to the Body and Blood of a M<w, which if hid under 
 the Accidents of Bread, my &/*/ are Deceived, for they 
 have no Other way to Diftinguifh Sub/lances, but by 
 the Accidents Proper to them. And when I Eat a Piece 
 of Bread, my Sight, Touch, Smell, and Tafle imform me 
 that it is not Flefi. Which if it be, they have all DC- 
 ceiv*d me : And I can be Certain of nothing in the World. 
 
 Befides the Lutheran Notion gives Vbiquity to Body^ 
 as well as that of Tran-fubftantiation. Which is a Con- 
 tradiction to the Nature of Body, which muft be Cir- 
 cumfcriPd, elfe ther cou'd not be a Greater or a Leffer 
 
 Body. 
 
 * ?>.% 
 
 E 2 So
 
 8 The firft DIALOGVE. 
 
 So that, upon the whole, Con-fubjlantiation is very lit- 
 tle Removed from Tran-jabftantiation. 
 
 SOC. But was not Con-fubfanthtion the Invention of 
 Luther. So you fee Men may Invent Contradictions. 
 
 CHR. That will not follow. For Luther was Bred 
 up under Tran-fubftantiation. In which finding Abfur- 
 dittes, he thought to Mend them by this New-coin'd 
 Dijlinction. I grant that Men may Invent Difinctions, 
 and upon Examination they may be found Contradictory ; 
 which themfelves might not fee at firft. But that is 
 not Parallel to the Inventing a Downright Flat Contra- 
 diftion in Terms, without Ground or Foundation, or any 
 Previous Principles leading to it. As it wou'd be in your 
 Notion of the Trinity, if it was Invented. And, aslfaid, 
 without any Temptation, or ferving any End or Purpofe 
 in i he World. Iftherwas no Foundation for fuch a thing 
 in Rexfon, as you fay, nor any Revelation of it, how 
 VT cou'd it have come into the Head of any Man living ? 
 
 ^ SOC. Do you think ther is any thing in Reafon for 
 Ids Ne- it ? Or that all your Allufions and Parallels will Prove it ? 
 ,Jempiat CHR. I bring them riot for Proof, but to Clear our 
 oiTof the NA- way towards the Proof, which is the Revelation of it in 
 God. Holy Scripture. And to take off your Objection and Great 
 Prejudice towards the Receiving that Proof, which 
 is, your Conceit of Contradiction in the Thing^ and which 
 'Blinds your Eyes againft the Proof, let it be never fo Plain. 
 Yet this I will fay on Behalf of Alluf.om and 
 Parallels in the Prefent Cafe, that they are not only Vfe- 
 ful, but Neceffary. For we cannot otherwife come at 
 any Notion or dftfebenfhn of God at all. His Being,'m 
 it felf, is far Exalted above all Created Vnderftanding. 
 Therefor we cannot come at it Directly; it is LIGHT 
 Inaccefflble and wou'd ftrike us Blind. We muft know 
 it then by the Reflection of it in Creatures, like beholding 
 the Sun in Water, which is too Bright for our Eyes to 
 look upon, without fome Means to Darken it's Rajs. 
 
 And
 
 The firfl D LA LOGVE. 
 
 And God difcovers Himfelf to us by fuch 
 For how cou'd He do it otherwife? He calls Himfelf 
 our Kjng, and our Father : Is it not Lawful then to 
 Contemplate Him under fuch Attufions, when it is Impofli^ 
 blefor us to do it otherwife? Wecomeat the Knowledge 
 of Him, by thofe Images of Himfelf which he has Gre* 
 ated in us. He has Planted Wifdom in our Hearts, and 
 a Pore fight or Providence in Managing our own Affairs, 
 as likewife Juftice and Mercy, and other Noble Endow- 
 ments. Thence we Frame our Notions of his Infinite 
 Wifdom, Power, Providence, &c. And we can have no No- 
 tion of him at all, but by Allupon to what he has Crea* 
 ted in us. All the Reft is Clouds and Thick-darkmfs to us. 
 
 Therefor I have Infifted upon thefe Parallels and Al- 
 lufwns, to fh'ew, That ther is an Image and Refimbl&ace 
 of his Holy Trinity, Imprinted in our very Souls, as 
 well as in Bodies, fo far as they are Capable of it. But 
 ftill with that Diftance and Difprop&riiew that muft Ne- 
 ceflarily be fuppos'd betwixt Vinit and In-finit. 
 
 Having faid thus much, to Remove your Prejudice ; 
 I will go on, and (hew you yet further Parallels, whereby we 
 may Rife up Higher, as on a Ladder, and view more ot the f the H. 'in- 
 Perfection of -God, by that Imtge of it which he has Imprefs'd^ 
 upon Creatures. 
 
 To be Beneficial to others, is an Image of God, from 
 whom all 'Good things do come. This is Exprefs'd in 
 the Heavens, the Sun, Moon^ and Stars, and their In- 
 fluevce upon the Earth. But they are not Sen f bis of it, 
 nor have any Pleafure and Hafpinefs in it. The Sun fhines 
 to Others, not to Himfelf. 
 
 It is then a Nearer Image of God, to KJJOW when we 
 do Good, and to take Pleafure and Satisfaction in it. 
 To do it Voluntarily, and when it was in our Power 
 not to do it. Whereby it becomes Our Aft, and we 
 Gain the Name of Benefactors. And Rejoice in it, .as 
 God did in his Works ? and faw they were very- Good. 
 
 We
 
 30 The firft DIALOGUE. 
 
 \Ve by this Par fake of the Happinefs we give to others. 
 
 But ther is an Higher Degree of Happinefs ftill, and 
 a yet nearer Imtge of God, and that is, when we our 
 felves are made the Object of our own Benefactions, as I 
 may fo call it. When we can do Good to Oar Selves, 
 and can Tafe our own H*ppinefs y can Rejoice and take 
 Pleafure in Our Selves. This is the Neareft to us of any 
 thing. And this Joj no Man can take from us, no ftran- 
 ger can Intermeddle with it. This is Perform'd in us by 
 what we call Self-Reflection, whereby we become the 
 Object of our own Knowledge, and Love. And this is Recipro- 
 cal in us, we are the Perfon Kjtowing, and the Perfon that is 
 -'Kjiown, the Perfon that Loves, and the Perfon that is Loved. 
 And this cou'd not be Done, but by the Operation of fe- 
 ral Faculties in the Soul, which are an Image of the fe- 
 veral Perfons in the Deity. And the Original of this Self- 
 Reflection is a Reflex- A8 of the Understanding, the Fa- 
 ther-Faculty, as has been before Difcours'd. And this 
 Refembles the Father, the Fountain ( as I may fo fay ) 
 of the Diety. 
 
 In this Confifts the Ejfcntial Happinefs of God, in the 
 KjHmhdge and Love of Himfelf. And this Reflected Per- 
 fectly from one Perfon of the Godhead to Another. Which 
 is Infinitly more Compleat than the Shadow of it in the 
 Reciprocal Reflection of the Faculties in our ?*/. But a 
 Shadow and //p*f of it, it is. And without which we 
 fhou'd not be able to have the leaft G limps or Apprehen- 
 jion of the other. 
 
 Yin. This leads me to Another Step up this Ladder, which 
 ot the re- Neceflarily follows from what has been faid, or is gather 
 
 rMdiy in the ^j. a f urt ^ er ProfeCUtion of it. 
 
 We all Agree that whatever Perfection is in Man muft 
 be much more Eminently in God from whom it came. 
 
 Now to the Plappinefs ther is in Thought, \h& is a fur- 
 ther added, which is, to Communicate that Thought to 
 Another. Without this, the Soul wou'd be a very Solita- 
 ry
 
 The FirftDIALOGVE. 
 
 yy thing. And wou'd grow We try of /> felf, in a little 
 time. As we find it, when we are left too long Alone : 
 \Vithout Conyerfatioff) Life would be a Burthen. Who 
 \vou'd be Content to Live, if ther were never a Map 
 left in the World but himfelf ? This Communication, of 
 Thought is done, among A/0, by Words. Whence in 
 Compliance to our Manner of Apprehenfion, the Son is 
 likewife Call'd the Word of God. Self- Reflection is very 
 Properly call'd, the Word of the Mind. And this Word 
 was the firft CommumcAtion which God gave of himfelf. 
 He is alfo call'd the Word, as He was the Inftrument 
 by which God made all things and Comunicated of Him- 
 felf to Creatures. Whence the Creation is Defcrib'd as 
 being all Spoken. He Spake the Word, and it was done, 
 He Commanded, and they were Created. God &w^, Let 
 ther be Light, &c. And by his PfV^ were the Heavens 
 made, and all the Hoft of them by the Breat h of his 
 Mouth. So the Son- is call'd the Word, in Refpecl of 
 God's Communicating Himfelf to Himfelf. And likewife 
 of his CommunicAting Himfelf to Creatures. 
 
 But ther is another Communication beyond the Comma* 
 mention of Thoughts by Words, and that is, to Commu- 
 nicate ones felf, our whole Nature, full and Entire. To 
 Produce ones Like, in full Perfection as ones felf. Thus, 
 we fee Trees fpring from Trees, Beafts, Fifb, and fowl 
 and Man. Propagat their Kjnd. And fhall God who gave 
 Fertility \.Q Creatures, be Barren Himfelf P He that made 
 the Eje, do's he not See ? And is not the Fertility of - 
 Creatures an Image of a much more Eminent Fecundity 
 in G<?^. ? As he fays, If ah. 66 9. according to the Vul- 
 gar Tranflation. Numquid Ego, qui alias Parere facio? - 
 Jpfe non Pariam ? dicit Dominus. Si Ego, qui Generationem 
 Ctteris tribuo t Sterilis ero ? ait Dommus Deus tuus. That 
 is, Shall not I who caufe others to bring forth, bring forth my 
 felf? faith the Lord. If I give to Others the Power ofGe- 
 neratioft, /ball I be barren my felfl faith the Lord thy God. 
 
 Since
 
 The Firft DIALOGV E. 
 
 Since therefor tfee Communie&ion of ones Natures a Per- 
 faction, it is of Neceflity that God muft have it. For it 
 "is a flhxim, in Philofopky, that Nemo flat quod non habet. 
 None can Give what he has not, 
 
 Befides, the former Argument includes this. For God cou'il 
 not Communicate his Thoughts, without Communicating al- 
 fo his Nature, that is, he cou'd not Communicate ALL of 
 his Thoughts, except to what was Capable to Receive 
 them. -And nothing but Infnite can contain Infinite. And 
 it being Natural to Goodnefs to Delight in Communicating 
 it felf, Confequently God muft be Deprived of -the Pleni- 
 tude of this Perfection, if ther were not a Per fan Ca- 
 pable of Receiving all his Goodnefs. Elfe God muft be 
 Stinted in this Greateft of Happinefs. As a R/f^ couM 
 not Empty it felf, unlefs ther were a Place to Receive 
 it; and fo wou'd Ceafe to be a River. 
 
 And thus, unlefs ther were Different Perfons in God 9 
 ther wou'd be a Contradiction in all his -Attributes. Ther 
 wou'd be Infinite Power, without Power, to jfT/ it felf 
 Infnitlj. Which is a fiat -Contradiction; And fo of /- 
 fnite Love, IVtfdom, &C. 
 
 SOC. Whatever ther may be in thefe Reafons for two 
 
 Or a JUrd Perfons in the -Godhead, the O^e to Contain and Receive 
 e All of the 0//*r, yet what can you fay for a TAW? 
 what need is ther of that? 
 
 CHR. Firft, that it is ReveaPd which we are to fee. 
 In the next place, by the Image God has given us of 
 Himfelf in our own Sou/, we have feen already, That 
 the Soul is not Compleat, nor can Aft, without three 
 Faculties. And no Two of them can del without the 
 Third. And toHapply this, the Communication of Infi- 
 nite Power and Wifdom (which are Reprefented in the 
 Two firft faculties of our Mind) cannot be fuppofs'd 
 without an Infinite Reciprocal Love, betwixt thefe Per- 
 fons. And ther being no Accident in God, but that 
 whatever is in God, is God ; Confequently the Recipro- 
 
 cal
 
 The Firft DIALOG V E. 53 
 
 cai Love ( to which Anfwers the Third Fteultj of the 
 .6V//) which Unites thefe two Perfons, muft: be a Perfon 
 too, and God, for it muft be Jnfmt. And ther is an 
 ImAge of this in Human Production, wherein ther muft 
 be juft three Perfons, neither More nor Lefs, that is, 
 Father, Mother, and Child, Which Names God ufes in 
 Relation to Himfelf. Therefor we may ufe them ? Thus 
 the Son of Siracb ufes them EccluJ. 24. where he fpeaks 
 of the fecond Per Jon by the name of Wifdom 3 and as 
 that Word of God he Introduceth Him faying, ver. 5. 
 7 came out of the Mouth of the moft High, firft Born be- 
 fore all Creatures. I caufed the Light , &c. And fo fpeaks 
 of the other works of Creation, all of which he afcribes 
 to Himfelf. Then fays, ver. 20. / am the Mother of 
 beautiful LO^E. This the third Perfons of the Holy Tri- 
 nity. But more of this, when we come to the Texts of 
 Scripture. 
 
 6'OC. If the Divine Nature fhou'd Repeat this Pro- i. 
 dutfion of Per fans* then you might have as many Per- Why , !?."" 
 
 r i r\- AT i rl \ J *-* OHC Prduftiotl 
 
 Jons in the Divine Nature, as in the Human, and Con- in the Deity. 
 fequently as many Gods as Men. 
 
 CHR. Your Conception is Grofs. For Fir ft ^ three Perlons 
 in the Divine Nature do's not make three Gods, more 
 than three Faculties make three 50/f. As. we have Dif- 
 cours'd before. But Secondly, ther Cannot be another 
 Production in the Divine Nature, more than ther can 
 be another Divine Nature. For the three Perfons are 
 of the Ejjence of the Divine Nature. As the three Facul- 
 ties are of the Soul. Therefore ^Unchangeable and V/t- 
 aherable. And as to the Argument I have Proceeded up- 
 on of It/fait Communication from one to Another, if it 
 be Infinity it can be no More. And to Infnit Producti- 
 on nothing can be Added. But Human Productions 
 may be oh Repeated, Becaufe they are all Finit, and 
 therefore Additions and Additions may be Made to them. 
 From all which follows. 
 
 F Firft,
 
 34 The Fir $ DIALOGUE. 
 
 Firjl. That an Infnit Power without an Infnit Pro- 
 dutfion, is a Coittradi&iov. For it fuppofes Infinity IQ be 
 Limited, 
 
 Secondly, That ther can be no Infnit Production but 
 in the Perfons of the Bleffed Trinity. 
 
 Thirdly, that an Jnfnit Production cannot be Repeated. 
 Becaufe it wou'd Add to Infnit, and make more In* 
 (wits. 
 
 SOC. The Heathen Pbilofophers might have talk'd at 
 this Rate. How come they not to find out a Trinity 
 as well as you? 
 
 CHR. They did talk at this Rate. And did hold a 
 Trinity in the Godhead, as I (hall fliew you by and by, 
 when we come to that Head. 
 
 S'OC. But your St. Athanaftus the Creed- Maker will 
 
 Thefecond not only have us Believe all this, but takes upon him 
 
 rerfon Begot- to Determin the very Manner forfooth, as if he knew it, 
 
 k w a11 d 1 ' 18 is ^ one > T ^at the Frthtr is neither Created 
 nor 'Begotten 5 the 5c not Created, but Begotten ; the H0- 
 /y GM neither Created nor Begotten, but Proceeding. 
 
 CHR. You Socinians pretend of all Men to Argue 
 without Paflion, and Perfonal Reflections^ but Frf/W/ and 
 upon the Square, keeping Clofe to the Argument. And 
 have been Propos'd as a Pattern for this, by fome that 
 LcnSd you better than they Kjiew you. For none havd 
 Exceeded you in Bitternejs and *#&L**gatge. Even in 
 this Brief Hiflory we are now upon, the Common Epithets 
 you beftow upon Chriftians are Ignorant, Brutal, Stupid, 
 without Common-JenJe, &c. Hence came your Witticijw, 
 in your Brief Notes upon St Athanafius's Creed, whom 
 you call Sathanafius, and Creed Maker there, and in other 
 of your Books. And Pleafe your felves with this Pro. 
 phane Jeft and Contempt caft upon that Great and Learned 
 CHAMPION of Chrijiianity. 
 
 But to kave your Dirt. You Charge very Unjuftly 
 upon him the Inventing of thefe Terms and Diflincfions. 
 
 He
 
 The Firfl DfALQGVE. 35 
 
 He folio w'd the fame Terms us'd in Holy Scripture, and 
 by the Catholick Church before him. The Terms of Fa- 
 ther and Son, and the Son being call'd the Only Begot- 
 ten of the Father, you cannot be Ignorant are Scripture- 
 Phrafes. But the word Begot fen is never Apply 'd to 
 the Holy Ghoft, but the word Proceeding is, as Joh. xv. 
 26. life $/>/>/> of Truth which P ROC EEDETH from the 
 Father. 
 
 SOC. But you fay He Proceeded, from both Father 4 . 
 and Son. The 
 
 CHR. Then He Proceefah from the FrfJkr. If He *f f r P r c t e h e ; 
 Proceeds from B0J&, He Proceeds from *^. And injtoferandthe 
 the fame Text, the &w takes upon Him ta Send the- 5 ' "* 
 
 Holy Ghoft Jointly with the Father. The Comforter 
 
 whom I mil fend unto you from the Father. And Chap: 
 xvi. 13. 14. He /ball not fpeak of him je If, but whatsoever he 
 {ball hear that [ball he fpeak, And from whom (hall he 
 hear ? Even from the Son, who faith, He {ball Receive of 
 mine, and (ball {hew< it unto you. Do's He not Receive 
 it likewife of the Father ? Yes, for Cbrift faith in the 
 next verfe, AH things that the Father hath are Mine ; there- 
 fore faid /, that he (hall take of Mine, and {ball Jberv it un- 
 to you. Here the Father is made the Fountain, from 
 whom the Son receives All the Whole of tite. Father, All 
 that the Father hath, And the Holy Ghoft receives the 
 fame All from Father and Son. And he is call'd the * 
 
 Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Chrift, as Rom. viii. 9^ 
 If fo be the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any*Ma& 
 have not the Spirit of Chrifl, he is None of His. And GaL 
 iv. 6, God hath fent forth the Spirit of his Son .into your 
 hearts. And He cou'd not be call'd the Spirit of the 
 Son, any other wife than as Proceeding from the Son. So 
 that it is Evident He Proceeds from both Father and Son. 
 And He is call'd the Spirit of Each, that is, of Both. 
 
 And to this Anfwers the Parallel I have before Men- 
 tion'd of the three FAwlties in the Soul, for the VjiAi**' 
 
 F 2 fanding
 
 16 The Firft DIALOGUE. 
 
 fandwg is the Fountain or Father Faculty, whence the 
 Memory receives All that it has, and may be call'd its Son\ 
 and the Will receives from Both r and Proceeds from Both. 
 
 SOC. But why do you fay the One is Begotten, the 
 Term^B^f- other Proceeding* Where is the Difference. 
 
 CHR. This isEntring too far into the Myftery tf God. 
 Or to Expeft that Parallels fhou'd Hold in every thing; 
 We are to follow the Expreflions of Holy Scripture. 
 But yet we are not left wholly Deftitute even in this 
 Point. We have Difcours'd before, SecJ. vii. of Self-Re- 
 faftiirt in the Soul. And that this is the Generation of 
 Spirits. And that this is an Act of the VnderfUxdirtrtine 
 Father Faculty, by which it Begets its own Similitude and 
 'Likenefs in the Memory, by its own Internal Power and 
 Fecundity. So that the Memory may be call'd a Jecond 
 Viiderpaxdiiig. But the Memory is no Reflective Faculty, 
 it only Preferves what the Under {landing has Commit- 
 ted to it. And the Will Determins its felf only as to 
 Like or bi/like. And therefor may be fa id to Proceed, 
 rather than to be Begotten And the more becaufe the 
 Will Acts perfectly Voluntarily, tho j as we fay, it muft 
 follow the Vltimat Diciat of the Vnderftanding, but that is, 
 not by way of Force, but Choice. For the Witt do's 
 every thing by Choice. 
 
 ix. SOC. But who can think of this Diverfky of Perfons 
 
 .^ e j > in God, without a Breach of his1>/r/'/>? It makes Him 
 as it were Compounded of the three Perfons, whereas we 
 know God to be a Being that is moft Simple and One 
 in His Nature, and canaot be Compounded or Made upo'r 
 any thing. 
 
 CHR. God is not Compounded or Made up of any thing. 
 
 His Vnity is the moft Perfect of all Unities. But in 
 
 Every l^i/jtheris an Union of fomthing, and that muftr 
 
 be Divers things. For thcr is no Vnion of One. 
 
 T . This Vnity in Bodies is by way of Compofition. For 
 
 The TLfc/y of every ^ 0( h i s Compounded of other Bodies, which are
 
 The Flrft D I A L G V E. 37 
 
 Parts of that Body. As a Brick is Part of an Hoafe. 
 And my finger is Part of my J30^. And ther are feve- 
 veral Parts in my Fwger, and Parts of thofe /^/.f again, 
 and fo Without End. And tbefe Parts may be Divided 
 the One from the other. And other Parts may be Added 
 to them, and the Body made Bigger. So that Every 
 Body is many Bodies, that are Compounded and 
 
 But it is far otherwife in the Unity of a S/>/>/>. For 
 a Spirit is not Ccmfounded, or made up of P^r//. And 
 therefore cannot be Divided. It is not capable of A& 
 diticn or Multiplication. We fay not that our Soul is 
 Mu!tiplf d or Divided among ks three Faculties. Or that 
 it is Compounded of them. They cannot be taken from 
 it, as a Part may be taken fiom a Body. Therefor its 
 Unity is more Perfect than that of a Body. It Confifts 
 not of feveral Parts, tho' it do's of feveral Faculties , We 
 call not the Faculties Parts of the Soul. They are Ra- 
 ther Powers of the Soul. Eflential Powers, by which it 
 Acts, and without which it cou'd not Act at all, nor 
 be a Soul. 
 
 Thefe Powers of the Soul bear a nearer Refemblance to 
 the Perfons of G0d, which are Eflential to the Godhead, Jppi/d <> 
 without which it cou'd not >#?. It cou'd not have a God ' 
 Reciprocal Knowledge and Love of its felf, nor Enjoy its 
 own Bltfftdnefs, nor QommumcAt. it F^y, as has been 
 laid, and Confequently muft be .Stinted, and 'Limited in 
 the.Gr4fte/K of Happiwfs. 
 
 Yet thefeFr^*J are not-F^r/j of Go^, nor is He Cow- 
 pounded of them, or either Maltiptyd or Divided among 
 them- But the whole D^'/j Flowing Perpetually, in its 
 Full Infinity, from one Per/0# to Another, is in the Eter- 
 nal Enjoyment of its own Beatitude, Blejfed for ever in its 
 Self\ in fo Perfet an 'Unity as can be but Faintly Refrt- 
 fentsii in the Unity of any Creatttre, even of a SouL 
 
 SQQ.,,
 
 3 8 The firft D1ALOGV E. 
 
 x. SOC. But is ther not a Mutual Communication of S/>/- 
 
 ofthemu- p Do 's not one s^ r /j j i n w i t h Another and P*r- 
 
 r.uil Commit.- ,. , -J 
 
 '. .jf/ ( . of tafo or it, as D0d/e.f dor 
 
 Cf/K. Yes furely, and in much more Intimate manner 
 than Bodies. All the Enjoyment and Satisfaction in the 
 "Onion of Bodies, is from the T;^/^ of their Souls. This 
 is what we call Love* Without this Bodies are Infewfible 
 of their Vnion, and can take no Pleafure, or Satisfaction 
 in it, as in the Produlion of Tra/, Plants, flowers, &c. 
 
 And the Vnion of &>#/.> is ftronger, the lefs of Ccrpo- 
 
 stionger / is mixt with it. Therefore Friendship is the ftrongeft 
 
 1 of J)e among Afc#. This is the Chief Cement of Conjugal 
 
 Affection. Where that is wanting, 'tis a Take indeed. 
 
 And upon the Comparifon the Preference is given to 
 
 Friendfoip. Deut. 13. 6. If the Wife of thy Bofom, or thy 
 
 Friend, which is as thine own Soul^ entice thee, &c. And 
 
 2. Sam. i. 26, Thy Love tome was Wonderful (faidD^- 
 
 vid of Jonathan) faffing the Love of Women. 
 
 But the Comparifon of the Vnton ther is in Flefh and 
 that which is between Spirits, is carry'd much Higher 
 by the Apoffle i. Cor. 6. 16, 17. For two, faith He, {ball 
 be One Flefh, but he that is ^joined unto the Lord, is one 
 Spirit. To be one Spirit with God\ And that more nearly 
 than Man and Wife are one Flefh. This feems to be one 
 of thofe Vnfpeakable things which St. Paul fays, are not 
 Lawful (or PofRbleJ for A Man to utter. 2. Cor. 12. 4. 
 
 But this muft be the Foundation of thofc frequent Al- 
 
 thi f';f^///^in Holy Scripture^ where Cbrif is call'd the Bride. 
 
 scripture, groom, and the Church his Spoufe, And Heaven is De- 
 
 fcrib'd as the Eternal Marriage-Feaft. And He having 
 
 taken our Nature into thtDeity in his own Perfon, what Cw- 
 
 munications thence may be Given even to our Bodies when 
 
 Glorjffdj by our Participation of the fame Human Nature 
 
 with Cbritt, is what Eye hath not feen, nor Ear heard, nor 
 
 can Enter into the ffeart of Man to Conceive, That they 
 
 fM ((ays Chritt, Joh. 17. 21, 22, 25.) may be one, asthou
 
 The Fnft DIALOGUE. 39 
 
 Father Art in Me, and 1 in Thee; that they alfo may be one 
 in Vs And the Glory which Thou gave ft Me, I have given 
 Them ; that they may be one, even as We Are one. I in 
 them, and' Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one, 
 and that the World may know that Thou haft fent me, and 
 haft Loved Them, as Thou htft Loved Me. Thefe are 
 Wonderful Expreflions ! And lead our Thoughts to what 
 we cannot Comprehend \ But they plainly Import, that 
 by our Union with Chrift, who has United Himfelf to 
 our Nature, we (hall Partake of an Union with God, even 
 Like to the Vnion of Ckrift with Him, who Partakes 
 like wife of His Divine Nature. As the Apoftle fpeaks, 
 2. Pet. i. 4. Whereby are given unto us exceeding great 
 and precious Promifes, that you might be Partakers of the Di- 
 vine Nature. An Earneft of which was Given in the 
 Miraculous Defcent of the Holy Ghoft at Pentecoft, like : 
 that at our Saviour's Baptifm ; whereby we were (as it 
 may be faidj put into Poffeffion of the Holy Spirit of God. 
 
 As the fame Apoftle fpeaks, i. Pet. i. 12, with the 
 
 Holy Ghoft fent down from Heaven, which things the Angels 
 defire to look into-, Or to Prie narrowly into them, 
 7ra<29ytfJ4*, to ftoop down and look Earneftly, as St. 
 'John into the Sepulchre, Joh. 20. 5. w&egxtty&s Or 
 elfe to Bow themfelves, in Adoration of fo great a My.**, 
 fiery. 
 
 St. Paul fpeaking how intimatly we we United to Ckrift, 
 fays, Eph. 5. 30. We Are Members of his Body, of his 
 Flefh, and of his Bones. And he takes this from Allufion 
 to the Production of Eve out of Adam, whereupon Adam 
 faid, Gen. 2. 2 $. This is now Bone of my Bones, and F/ejJj 
 of my F/eflj. And the Inference is made in the next 
 words, Therefor (l)all a Man leave his Father and his Mo- 
 ther, and fbalL Clsave unto his Wife, axd they fly all be one 
 Flefh. Which the Apofile repeats, Eph. 5. 31. Immediat- 
 ly after his words before Quoted, We are Members, of His 
 (ChrilVs) Body, of bis Flefo and of his Bones, For this
 
 40 The Firft DIALOG V E. 
 
 Caafi foall a Man leave his Father And Mother, and 
 he Jojned unto his Wife, and they two foa/l be one 
 7/7/i is A great Myfery : But 1 fpeak concerning Chrift 
 *nd the Church. Here is the Parallel clofely carry'd on 
 betwixt the Vnion ther is in our Marriages ^ and that 
 much more Intimat Vnion in our Marriage with Christ ^ 
 and in Him, with the whole Blefled Trinity, ; which the 
 Apostle calls the great My fiery. 
 
 Therefor let none Defpife the ufe of Parallels, which 
 ''are fo frequent in Holy Scripture. By thefe we are led 
 to the Knowlege of God, and the great Myftery of our 
 Redemption, and future Enjoyment of God. We fee indeed 
 by thefe but as in a Glafs, darkly. But without thefe 
 we fhou'd know ^much Jefs, and not be able to frame 
 to our felves any Ideas of it at all, or any but what 
 wou'd be much more .Erroneous. And fince God in Holy 
 Scripture has us'd this Method with us, no doubt it is 
 moft proper, and the Be ft we can ufe. We muft afcend 
 to God by the Scale of His Creatures. We have no other 
 way ; For we cannot fee Him as He is. 
 4 . Hence our Partaking of the Nature of Chrift, is made 
 
 M * c .n lively to us by what we Know, that is, our Partaking 
 f 'of the Nature of our Parents, and fo up to Adam. Hence 
 Row. 5. 14. Adam is callM The Figure of Him who was 
 to Come. And the Parallel betwixt Him and Chrift is 
 Carry'd on to the End of that Chapter. And i. Cor. 
 .15. 21. As in Ad Am all Die, even fo in Chrift {hall all be 
 made Alive. And ver. 45. The fir ft Man Adam was made 
 a living Soul, the loft Adam was a Quickning Spirit. And 
 ver. 47. The frft Man is .of the Earth, Earthly : The fe- 
 cond Man is the Lord from Heaven. 
 
 Tertuttian infifts largely upon this Parallel, (de Refur. 
 Cam. c. 6.) and go's through every Particular and C/>- 
 cums'iance of the Formation of Adam, and fhews how it 
 ail Referr'd to Christ. He fays, Quodcunque enim Limus 
 
 expriwebAtitr, CbriHus cogltabatur Homo juturus ita 
 
 Limus
 
 The firjl VI A LOG V E. 41 
 
 Limns tile JAW tune ImAginem Muens Chrifti futuri, no 
 tantum Dei opus erat, fed et Pignus. i. e. Whatever the 
 Earth of Adam was made , Chrift was Meant by it, whofhotfd 
 
 become M&n So the Earth then putting on the Image of 
 
 Chrijl to come in the Flefo, was not only God*s Workman- 
 [hip, but his Pledge. That is, that Chritt fhou'd come in 
 the Fle(h. 
 
 And as Adum was a Type of Chriff, fo was Eve of * 
 the Church, which fhou'd bring forth Children untoG0^. f th eaL 
 And as the Church is Builded upon Chritt her Rock and Particularly 
 Foundation-, fo was Eve made or Builded (zs our Margin, jj^ 10 * F Qrm ' 
 after the Hebrew, reads Gen. 2. 22.) out of Adam. And " 
 as the Church has no /-*/<? but what flie Derives from 
 Chrifl, fo neither had Eve, but what fhe Deriv'd from 
 Adam, And as the Side of Chrifl was Opened, after His 
 Death, whence IfTu'd ^/<rr and Blood. Of which He 
 has given us the Two Salutary Sacraments of Baptifm 
 and the Lord's Supper. By the F/>/? we are B0r# ^/^ 
 of Water and the //c/> 5/>/r// ; and made Members of His 
 Church, which is His Body: And by the 6>*0W we are 
 Perpetually Nouriftfd with His Blood into Eternal Life. 
 Now thefe -F/onW not out of Cbritf's ftde y till after He 
 was Dead. For till then He had not fully Paid the Price 
 of our Redemption. The Confummatum eft was not Pro- 
 nounc'4 but with His latt Breath upon the Crofs. For 
 till His Death, all was not Finifb'd. Then came out the 
 Water and the Blood, which are the Life of His Church. 
 And the Church, being then Perfectly Redeemed, may be 
 faid to be B0r#, and taken out of His Dead Body. So 
 it is faid Gen. 2. 21. The Lord God caufed a, deep Sleep 
 to fall upon Adam, and he Slept. And while he was in 
 this neareft Image of Death (And we muft fuppofe it 
 was more than an Ordinary Sleep which the Lord caus'd 
 to fall upon him) his Side was Opened, and Eve was 
 taken out of him. 
 
 G And
 
 42 The firjl DIALOGUE. 
 
 And as it was faid of the firft Ad.tm, That ther was 
 no Help meet/0r him found among all the Inferior Crea- 
 tures, therefor that God made an Help meet for him, out 
 of his own Flejh and Blood: So was ther no Help meet 
 for the fecond Ad/un among Birds, Fifty or Fowl, but His 
 Delight was with the Children of Men. And out of 
 them He purchafed a Church with His own Blood, to be 
 an Holy Spoufe unto Him, and an Help meet for Him, 
 to bring forth Children unto Glory. 
 
 It cannot Efcape any Bodies Obfervation, That the 
 Malt and Female of MA# were not Created together, like 
 thofe of the Birds, Fifo and fowl; But that the Man 
 was Created alone, and afterwards his Female was DC- 
 duc'd out of him. And ther is more Circumstance and 
 Particularities told of this Dedtttfio* of Eve out of Adam, 
 than even of the Formation of ^*w out of the Earth, 
 or any other Part of the Creation. And in that very fhort 
 History in Genefjs of the Times before the Flood, it can- 
 not be imagin'a fo much of it fhouM be taken up with 
 this, if it were not a matter of the Higheft Moment, and 
 greatly to be Regarded by Us. And it appears the more 
 to be fo, by the frequent Allufwns made to it in the 
 New Testament, not only with Relation to Man m&Wifc, 
 but to Cbritt and His Church. 
 
 xi. SOC. Come, to have done with your Allufwnt. If 
 
 ^E*b of the three Ptrfons in your fuppos'd Tntty was 
 scripture the God, than the word G&d wou'd not in Scripture be Ap- 
 to 4>/v of them more than to dnither. But it is 
 
 Trinity is 
 
 mea 
 
 
 evident that generally through the Scripture by the word 
 God i.$ meant God the Father, and Him only. As to 
 thofe Particular Texts wherein you Alledge it is Apply'd 
 to the other two Perfons, we (hall Examin them by and 
 by. But it wouM be Always apply M to them, if Each 
 of them were God, as you fay. Why not Always to 
 them, as well as to the Ftther! 
 
 CHR*
 
 The Firft DIALOGUE. 43 
 
 CHR. It is not Always given to the Father, as I fliall 
 fliew you. But firft take my Direft Anfwer. That 
 by the word God in Holy Scripture the whole Trinity of 
 G?d is meant. And it muft be fo. For if the three 
 Perfons are of the Nature of the Gotfieaf, which we 
 have already Difcours'd, then the word God muft Imply 
 them all. As when we fay the Soul of Man, the three 
 Faculties, and Each of them, is certainly meant. 
 
 SOC. But why then do you Attribute Creation to the Particular 
 Father, Redemption to the Son, and Santtif cation to the A f t ^f^' 
 
 CHR. As we Attribute one Operation of the Soul to 
 the Vaderftanding, another to the Memory, and another to 
 the Will. And yet they all three At in Concert, and 
 no One of them can Act without the Other. As has been 
 plainly fhewM before. And that thus it is in the Perfons 
 of the Holy Trinity. 
 
 And, to apply the Parallel to your prefent Objection, 
 the Under ft amtingj which is the Father faculty, has the 
 name of Soul given to it more commonly than either of 
 the other two Faculties. For Example, when we De- 
 fcribe a Fool, a Man of no Under ft adixg y it is common 
 to fay, fu,ch an one has no Soul, or, as Chryfippas in Seneca, 
 faid of the Soul of a Swine, that it ferv'd only as Salt, 
 to keep his Body from Stinking. But we fay not fo of 
 an Objlinate Man, or one of a Perverfe M 7 ///. Or of a Man 
 that has a Treacherous Memory. On the Contrary, it is 
 a faying, That the greateft Wits have the fhorreft Me- 
 mories. The word 
 
 Thus the word God, may fometimes be us'd to Exprefs cod fome- 
 God the Father. But generally fpcaking it means d* SiflrtPfiSli 
 D/>J. And fometimes it is us'd in Diftinclion even from the Father. 
 
 the Father, as Col. 2. 2. the Mrftery of GaL and of And the Dd- 
 
 +1 T i j r>i -a V ~ Exprefs d. 
 
 the Father, and of Chnjt. SytheW/ow 
 
 And the Godhead is fometimes Exprefs'd without the en iy. And the 
 word God at all, only by the Perjons of the 
 
 G 2
 
 44 The Firjl D1ALOGV E. 
 
 as in the Form of Baptifm which Chrift Commanded, 
 In the Name of the Father, And of the Sox, and of the 
 Holy Ghoft. 
 
 And fometimes the Term of Father is given to the 
 Son, as I fat. 9. 6. where Chrift is calPd the EverlajliH* 
 Father. That was in Relation to Creatures. For by Him 
 were all things made, Joh. I. j. 
 
 SOC. We will talk more of this, when we come ta 
 
 //Ztfc hadExamin thefe Texts. But now, in the mean time, I muft 
 
 a Notion of call upon you for what you Promised Sect. viii. of the 
 
 f& " Fecundity of God. Where you faid, That even Heathen 
 
 5^. aS Philofophers have Argu'd as you did. And had a Notion 
 
 of a Trinity of Perjons in God, from the Fecundity of His 
 
 Nature. 
 
 CHR. This Notion of the Fecundity of God made them 
 Defcribe God as Male and Female. Thus Damafcius re- 
 peats what old Orpheus taught of the Dw/y. dcvevodnhtw 
 
 t ' < * r >r , A " f ; 
 
 auTflv VStrgPicTttTT), Trpos 6?d a^/v r 7aj"rw^ ^THC*I$ ttcr<A5. 
 
 He made it Af^/f and FemaU to (hew the Generative 
 Power of all things, which they Deriv'd from it ; or by 
 which He made all things. And Procltts upon the 7V- 
 tntus, p. 95 Quotes this among other Orphick Verfes, 
 
 ^600, 2)^5 ajK^epT- 7TAgT3 
 
 Jupiter /; 4 Af^, Jupiter w 4^> 40 Im-mortal Woman. 
 
 It was very common among their Myftiek Writers to 
 ftile God r Affp69**i 9 that is, Man and Woman. And 
 Synefius a Learned and Pious Chriftian B//Z>^ follows this 
 Form of Expreffion in fome of his Hymns to God, as 
 
 So 
 
 4r/ Father, /<?* 4r/ Mother, 
 art Man, f0 4r^ Woman. 
 
 SOC.
 
 The firfl D I ALO GV E. 45 
 
 SOC. This go's but to two Perfons. It feems they 
 thought not of a third. 
 
 CHR. That do's not follow. Synepus a Bifhop did not 
 think fo, who ufes the fame Expreffion. And he Liv'd 
 in the fourth Century, when the Do&rin of the Trinity 
 was fully and every where Eftablifh'd, by your own 
 Confeflion. And he cou'd not then have been a Bijbop 
 without Acknowleging of it. Owning two Perfons, do's 
 not deny the third. And the Heathen Philofophers held 
 three Supream and Almighty Principles, which they call'd 
 likewife Perfons or Hyfofafes (which is the Greek for 
 Perfons) And that thefe Adi: in Conjunction, and made 
 the World and all things. 
 
 SOC. I have heard indeed that ther is a great deal of 
 this in Plato. For the Defence of the Brief Hiftory of 
 the Vnitarians which we are now upon, p. 5. and p. 17, 
 Speaks of three Principles of Plato. And Accufes the An- 
 te-Nicene Fathers for Arguing fo like Platonick Philofo- 
 phers, and fays, That they follow'd the Ideas of Plato 
 concerning the three Principles. And p. 17. he tells 
 us likewife, That the Jews had this Notion of the Tri- 
 nity, and Quotes Philo for it one of the moft Learned Jews. 
 
 CHR. Thefe are large Conceflions. He has given us up 
 the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the Jews, and the Heathens. But ha- 
 ving darted the Objection, w hat Anfwer do's he give to it? 
 
 SO C. For the Heathens, he fays, That the Fathers finding 
 fault with Plato's Notion, brought into the World a 
 new Interpretation of the three Principles. And for the 
 Jews, he fays, Mufl we believe Philo Judssus rather than 
 St. Paul ? Who pUtnly tells us 9 in Direct Oppojition to Philo, 
 that there is one God. 
 
 CHR. And fo faid Philo. For the Jews acknowledged 
 but one God: And St. Paul Cwho was Co-temporaty with 
 Philo) do's not Charge them with holding more than 
 one God. So that in this, ther is no Direft Opposition, 
 or any Oppofitio* at all betwixt St, Paul and Phiio. You 
 
 mult
 
 The Firft D IALOGV E. 
 
 muft fhew then that St. Paul oppos'd him as to the three 
 Ilypofltfes or Persons. 
 
 And as to the Heathen, we fuppofe not that they In- 
 vented it, but Learrfd it from the Jews. It is plain that 
 Plato attain 1 d to the Knowlege of the Jewifh Religion 
 in ALgypt. And fevt'Fal of the fathers have obferv'd the 
 Agreement of his Doclrin, in many things, with the 
 Old Teft.iment. Whence Numenius the Pythagorean faid 
 of him, Qttid ewm atittd eft Plato, quam Mofes Atticiffaies. 
 That is, that Plato was nothing elfe but Mofes fpeaking 
 at Mhsns. And many of the Fathers, as ^ttf'm Mtrtyr, 
 Clem. Alexandrinus, Eufebius, &c. have faid, that Plato had 
 Penetrated into the Myftery of the Trinity. 
 
 But thefe Philofophers having got PofTeflion of the No- 
 tion, did Refine upon it by their Philojophy, and fell 
 into Sundry Errors. As they did about the Notion of 
 a God, and feveral other things which they had ReceivM 
 by Tradition from the Beginning but knew it nor, as of 
 Mir n age, Sacrifice, Prieflhood, &C. Inftituted by God from 
 the Beginning of the World, and Defended thro' the 
 Heathen as well as Jervi/b Pofterky of Adam. But the 
 Original of them was Laft among thofe who had not 
 the Holy Scriptures, to Preferve the Tradition. Thus 
 Falf'e Religws came in, and were nothing elfe but a Cor- 
 ruption of the True , at firft Injlituted by God. 
 
 But ftill they Retained fo much of the Strifture of it, 
 as to fhew from whence they Came, and to be Redu- 
 cible into it again. And they (hnd in many Points as 
 Witneffe$ to it, and Confirmations of it. Particularly where 
 Reafo* comes in, in Aid of Religion, as in our Prefent 
 Cafe. The Church having the Revelation of the Blefled 
 Trinity, builds upon that. And is not Oblidg'd to go any 
 further. But the Heathen Philofbphers had no other way 
 of Proving it but by Reafon. And fome of them went 
 very far in that, as we have feen ; and may be Help- 
 ful even to Qhrifltm t in their ContempUtion of the Divine 
 
 Mj-
 
 The Firft DIALOG V E. 47 
 
 Mylleries. St. Auguftin owns this in the feventh Book of 
 his Conj'eflions, and Profe-ffeth that the Books of the Phi- 
 lofophers were of Great ufe to him to Help him to Un- 
 derftand more Eafily, fome Orthodox Truths. And that 
 he found in fome of them almoft all the Beginning of 
 the Gofpel of St. John. Which made Amelias an Hea- 
 then Philofopher fay when he Read it, That that Bar- 
 tar/4/?(as he call'd St. John) had ftol'n from their PLi- 
 lofophers his Notion of the Ao^^l or Word of God, be- 
 ing God, and One of the three firft Principles. Etifeb. 
 Prtptr. Evan, p. 540. But we (hall fee more of this 
 when come to Confider that Place in St. John ; And 
 likewife how the Philosophers, but efpicially the Ancient 
 Here ticks ( the Predeceffars of the SocinUns and Arians ) 
 had Corrupted the Uottrin of three firft Principles with 
 the Multitude and Confufion of their joues 9 &c. 
 
 Therefor the Apofttis and Fathers had Reafon to give 
 a New ( which was nearer to the O/^) Interpretation of 
 the three firft Principles. 
 
 SOC. Let me know a little what the Old Notion of 
 thefe three Principles was and when it Began among the 
 Heathen, 
 
 CHR. I told you before, that it came down to them 
 by Im-memorial Tradition from the 'Beginning \ and there- 
 fore we cannot Trace the Beginning. But we can Trace 
 it fo far, as to fhew that it was no Invention of the 
 Chrifians. For Plato, who has fo much of it, was Born 
 about 428. years before the Birth of Chrift. But the 
 Heathen did not Afcribe the Beginning of it to Plato, is 
 if it were an Invention of his. They faid that Orpheus 
 had it long before Plato. And the Chaldeans had it long 
 before Orpheus. They look'd upon it as coming down 
 to them by Old and Long Tradition, whofe Beginning 
 they knew not. Plotinus fpeaking of thefe 7p Ap%i- 
 v& c T7ro5acr5 three Chief Perfons, which fometimes they 
 call Principles^ fays, Mn y&w* (** D v ^ v <*AA<x wctAo/ $J ftp?^. 
 
 That
 
 4 The firft J) I A L G V E. 
 
 That tlv.s was not New, or then Invented, but a Tradi- 
 tion of Old time. And Proclus upon Tim*. Plat. calls this 
 Doclrin, * ^ T<r ear O^'^OTS. The Tradition of 
 */;>*<? Gcwfc. And 0fo-^'J>7^io?,oy'a. The Doctrin or Tfo- 
 c%> that was Delivered or Reveal'd by G<?^. They 
 callM thefe T/;rf*, fometimes three Principles, fometimes 
 three GW. f , fometimes three Natures, fometimes three 
 Perfons, rp&s vwcsaVft?, and T/>$ <pvff&s. And it is not ftrange 
 they fhou'd fall into thefe Varieties of Eypreffions want- 
 ing the true Revelation of this Great Myflery i zn& confequent- 
 ly not ty'd up to that Stritfnefs of Expreffton as we 
 are But they Explained themfelves fo as to fhew, that 
 by thefe Three they meant One only God. Therefor they 
 Call'd this Trinity of Gods the TO ao? the Godhead, or 
 Nature of Gtwf. As fays their Ancient Owc/e, 
 
 Havr} y) cy ^oo- ( M,(w Aa'ftT TgUCSj ^ MO'PCM o-p^. 
 
 In all the World ther fhines & Trinity, of "which 
 
 an Vmty is the /^^ 
 
 This is Inferted among the OraeuU 'Zproaftri en Platon- 
 tis Cottetta. p 8. This Treatife of ZoroaJleSs is Publifh'd 
 by franc. Patricius, at the End of his Nova de Vniverps 
 Yhilofofhia. fol. Edit. Venit. An. 1595. 
 
 The Heathen Philofophy is full of this Do&rin. And 
 they plac'd a Gradual Sub-Ordinaticn of thefe three Di- 
 vine Hjpoftafes or Perfons. And from thence they Argu'd, 
 that ther was a Neceflity for thefe three Hypoftajes to 
 be in the Nature of God. And that they cou'd be nei- 
 ther more nor lefs. And that they muft Proceed from 
 one another. Porphyry is Quoted to this Purpofe by St. 
 Cyril. Cont. Jul. 1. i. p. 34. Edit Par if. 1638. in Fo!. 
 
 T!W e wpoetiSreiv variaiv. That the Di- 
 
 vine Nature do's Extend or Communicat it felf to 
 the three Hypoftafes or Perfons. And Philo the Jew calls 
 thefe three Perfons 10 or, ****$*& vbu ^g&> AuVa/Acv. 
 de Agric. No*. \. 2. the firft, Being ; the fecond, Gover- 
 
 mng
 
 The Firfl DIALOGUE. 
 
 ning or Preferring ; the third, Love or Benefcence. Which 
 is the very Order in which we have Dncours'd of the 
 three Perfons. And Eufib. in his Prepar. Evangel, p. 327, 
 fays, 01 -mi/TES 'Efi&ltuv Jhohoyt fjty TO i/ K&v'Ttov Ogor, ^ 
 *- 7rw" ) ' r n>P I/ clvrtf 
 
 joi. that is, all the ^w//& Divines, after the 
 of all, and His firft born Wifdom^ do Deify a 77;/>d' 
 and Holy Power % which they call the Holy Ghofl, of 
 whom the Infpired were Enlightned. 
 
 Grotius Quotes fome of their Cabalijts who call God 
 three Lights, and by the Names of Father, Son, and 
 Holy Gkojt. 
 
 And Ainfoortb on G#. i. Recites out of one of their 
 Robbies, that in the word, Elohim ther are three Degrees, 
 each Dittinft by it felf, yet all One, Join'd in One, yet 
 not Divided from one another. 
 
 But more of this as to both ferns and Heathens, when 
 I come to fhew you their Notion of the AQ^(^ in Ex- 
 planation of Joh. i.i. XIIT. 
 
 SOC. You have Begun with Clearing Contradiction out A ftort . 
 
 r i_ i >n T^U L Re-CttpltttlAtl' 
 
 of the way, as to the Tnntty, Inat ther is none in the ( 
 
 Terms wherein you Exprefs it, that is, of three Perfons 
 
 in one Nature. Secondly, That we cannot Infer Contra- 
 
 diction from one Nature to another, unlefs we Vnderftand 
 
 Both. Which you have Exemplify'd in the Inftance of 
 
 a Man born Elind, of the Different Manner of the Pre- 
 
 fence of Soul and -B0^y, &c. Thirdly, you have Drawn 
 
 Parallels as to thofe Particulars wherein we Charge Con- 
 
 tradition in your Notion of the Trinity, chiefly from 
 
 the three Faculties in the Soul of Man. fourthly, You 
 
 have EndeavourM to Prove even by Reafon, the Diver- 
 
 fitj of Per forts in God, from the Neceflity of In fait Power 
 
 having an Infnit Scope wherein to Exert it felf. Whence 
 
 you have Infer r'd what you Call the Fecundity of God. 
 
 And fupported it with feverai Parallels which are made 
 
 H ufe 
 
 on.
 
 5 o The Fir(t DIALOGUE. 
 
 ufe of in Scripture. And La/lly, to Remove the Prejudice 
 of the Trinity being an Invention of the Chriftians, and 
 likewife to Reconcile it more to our Reafon, you have 
 produc'd Testimonies from the Heathens, as well as the 
 jfVn>j, to fliew that the lame Notion had been with them 
 all along, and Defcended to them from the firft ReveU, 
 tion given to Adam. 
 
 And all this I fuppofe you intended, to Facilitat my 
 Underftanding the Texts we ace to Difcourfe of, in your 
 Senfe, and the commonly recejv'd Notion, and not to 
 ftrain them ^ you (ay we do, from the Plain and Ge- 
 nuin meaning of the Words; And which you fay we 
 wou'd not do, but from the Necefflty we think lies upon 
 us to avoid Contradiction. And now I fuppofe you think 
 the way is open to enter upon the Confederation of the 
 Texts in Scripture, which muft Determin the Point. 
 Faufci of But ther is another Point Involv'd with that of the 
 Trinity^ wherein You and We as much Differ, that is, 
 what you call the In-carnation, that the Divine and Hu- 
 man Natures fhou'd be both join'd in one Perfon. And 
 among the Texts we are to Difcufs, feveral Refer to 
 this. Therefor before we Begin with the Texts, let me 
 know if you have any Parallel or llluftration of this, to 
 Remove my Prejudice (as you call it) from this St/tfe 
 of thefe Texts too. And then we have Done with 
 Parcels. 
 
 CHR. I will give you that in the words of the 
 Creed of St. sfthanafius^ That as the ReafonAbie Soul and 
 flefb is one Max, Jo God and Man is one Chrift. Now 
 ther are no two things in the World fo Different as 
 the Natures of Body and Soul. Hardly any thing, ex- 
 cept that of Bei*g, agrees to Both. Yet how are they 
 Vnited, fo as Both to make but one Pafo* ? And the 
 Parting of them, is the Diflrn&ion of the Ptrfon. And 
 even while they Remain United, their Natures and Pro- 
 perties aie no ways Confounded or Blended together, the 
 
 Soul
 
 The Firfl DlALOGVE. 51 
 
 Soul Partakes nothing at all of the Nature of the Body, 
 nor the Body of the Nature or Properties of the 
 Soul. But both Remain, tho* United, Diftintt and 
 Intire, each in its own Nature and Properties. Yet 
 the Properties of Either are Attributed to the Per Jon that 
 is Compos'd of Both. Thus A/^TZ is faid to Eat, Drink^ 
 Sleep, &c. whereas thefe belong only to the Body. He 
 is faid like wife to Vnderftand, Remember, Love or Hate. 
 And thefe belong only to the Soul, Thus when Chrijl 
 fuffcr'd, God is faid to Suffer, to fbed his Blood, to Die 
 for us, Act, 20. 28. i. Joh. j. 16. Tho' this Cou'd 
 not belong to the Divine Nature of Chrift. He is like- 
 wife call'd the Mighty God, the Ever la ft ing Father, Ifai. 
 9: 6. And that All things were Created by Him. Col. i. 
 1 6. Which cou'd not belong to His Human Nature. 
 But Both and Either are fpoke of His Per/on, in which 
 Both Natures are Vnited. And this (hews Him to be 
 both God and Man, fmce the Properties of Both Natures 
 are Attributed to Him. 
 
 SOC. By what L/0/b and Chaws can GW and Mm 
 be Join'd together, fo as to make one Perfon? 
 
 CHR. I cannot tell you. Nor how God do's Com- 
 municat of Himfelf to Creatures. In Him we Live and 
 Move and have our JBe/'/zg. The Being of every OM- 
 ture is a Communication of G0d. 
 
 SOC. But how can the fame Per fin be FWH> and In- 
 fait ? Do's not this Imply a Contradiction ? 
 
 CHK. How can the fame Per fin be Afor^/ and /;*- 
 mortal! Do's not this Imply a Contradiction? But it is 
 none, while it is not fpoken of the fame thing. It is 
 fpoken of the fame Perfon, but not of the fame Nature. 
 Thus we fay of the fame Man, that he is Mortal, and 
 like wife that he is Immortal. But the one is fpoken in 
 Relation to his Soul, the other to his Body. And can 
 any Man tell the Links and Chains by which Mortal 
 and Immortal, by which Spirit and Flefh are Join'd to- 
 
 H * gether,
 
 5 2 The firft DIALOGUE. 
 
 gether, fo as to make but one and the fame P-erfix-l 
 Thefe things we cannot Explain in our fefoes. And 
 wou'd we Explain them in God\ Whofe.PtfHw is Infnit, 
 and what is Impoffible with Men^ is Eajj to God y for 
 with Him all things are Peffible. 
 
 SOC. But can the Godhead be Converted into any thing 
 elfe than what it is? That wouM Argue Mutability in 
 God. How then can the Godhead be Converted into the 
 Manhood. 
 
 CHR. The Godhead is not Convened into the Manhood. 
 As the Soul is not Converted into the Body, in the Union 
 of our Per Jons. Therefore the Cmd of St. Atbanafus fays, 
 That G0d and Man are 00e in the P erf on of C/;r//?, Afo/- 
 ^ the Conner fion of the Godhead into le(b, but by taking 
 the Manhood into God. 
 
 SOC. I fee that Athanafius went upon Parallels as well 
 as you. But you Urge Paralleks no further than as lllu- 
 f rations^ to Remove our Prejudice from taking the Scrip- 
 tures in your Senfe . Therefore the Scriptures muft Deter- 
 min the Gaufe. And now let us come to to them. 
 . CHR. Ther is another Preliminary NecefTary to be 
 
 cur- fettl'd, in order to our Right -Under flan ding of the Holy 
 fthe Scriptures. And that is, in what Senfe we Ihall take them. 
 heft interpre All words are are Equivocal. And Capable of Different 
 ter of the HO- jtf ean wg s ^ either Literal or Figurative. And for us to 
 ' fet our Fancies on work what this or that word may 
 be Screwed to, and to put our own Inventions upon them, 
 is Endlefs, and of no Certainty when we .have done. Who 
 \vou'd Build his Faith upon the Criticifm of a Lexicon? 
 Tho' I deny not but ther is ufe for this fort of Learn- 
 ing too, in its Place. And many times it ferves to l&u* 
 jlrate and Char up things very much. 
 
 But the Ground and Foundation we have to go upon, 
 in Difputed Places of Holy Scripture, is the Senfe in 
 which they to whom they were Deliver'd did Vnderftand 
 them. They who LearnM the Dotfrins from the Mouths 
 
 of
 
 The Firft DIALOGV E. 53 
 
 of the Apo/l/ef, as well as from their Writings. Thefe, 
 furely, muft beft know the Meaning of thefe Writings. 
 And then again, they to whom Thefe taught them. And 
 fo on thro the feveral Ages of the Church. And Confi- 
 dering that the Gofpel was Preached, before the Apoftles 
 left the World, in moft Countries of the then known 
 Earth, even as far as the Eafl Indies, what was the 
 Common and Receiv'd Dootrin in all thefe far Diftant 
 Churches, muft be what was at firft Delivered to them ; 
 and cou'd not be any Concerts? Contrivance among them, 
 who had no Correfyondente with, or fo much as KJJOW- 
 ledge of one another. 
 
 This is Reducing our Difpute to Matter of Fatf, to 
 what was the Doftrin of the Church, and the Under- 
 fill and Receiv'd Doctrin, efpecially in the Firft and Pa- 
 reft Ages. This was the Method taken with Arius, in 
 the Council of Alexandria, they did not go with him 
 upon his Logick, nor Criticifm and Etymology of words, 
 but Quis unquam tali A Audivit ? Who ever Heard of this 
 Docinn before? And there being. Bifliops AfTembl'd from 
 feveral Countries, each declar'd the Doctrin that had been 
 Receiv'd in his Country. All which Concurring againft 
 the New Notions ftarted by Arias, they were Rejected 
 as Novelties, and Breaches upon the Chriftjan Faith. As- 
 you may fee in Socrat. Hift. 1. i. c. 5* 
 
 vVOC. We know the force of this Argument. And 
 therefor we Contend that the Current Dnttrin of the 
 Church was our way before the firft Council of Nice. 
 Which we fay Corrupted the true Christian Faith. 
 
 CHR. You have none to Quote on your fide, but 
 thofe who were Condemn'd by the Church, as Hereticks, 
 for thefe and fuch like Doctrins, contrary to the Faith 
 Eftablifh'd every where. 
 
 This is Learnedly and Elabouratly fet forth by Dr. Bull, 
 in a Treatife wrote on Purpofe upon that Subjed, con- 
 cerning the Antt-Nicene Faith. Wherein he fully Vin- 
 
 dicats
 
 54 /** Fir ft DIAL GV E. 
 
 dicats the Fathers of thofe -Ages, from the Afperfion& 
 you wouM caft upon them, as any way Favouring your 
 Herejy. 
 
 And thus far will tome in my way, that in Exami- 
 ning the feveral Texts of Scripture, I will endeavour 
 to bring fome of the Ante-Nicene Fathers for the Ortho- 
 dox Conftru&ion, againft that Interpretation which you 
 fet up. And wherein their faith concerning the Do- 
 ttrin of the Holy Trinity ', and like wife as to the Divi- 
 nitj of our Lord Chrift, will fully appear. 
 
 If I bring them not upon every Text-, or not many 
 of them; it is not ftrange, fince the Writers of thofe 
 Ages were not waxy. And their Works, that are come 
 to our hands, are generally Epiftles or Ap&logies, or upon 
 particular Subjetfs, not Comments upon the Scriptttre in 
 Order, as became more the ufe in the after Ages. And 
 therefor their Senfe upon particular Texts is to be found, 
 as it were by Chance, where they have occafion to Quote 
 them upon other Subjects. And tho' it will take rttore 
 Pains \ yet I hope I lhall have fufficient for what I have 
 Undertaken. 
 
 
 THE
 
 'JijO 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 THE 
 
 Firft DIALOGUE. 
 
 I 
 
 Ntrodu&ion. Page i 
 
 All Belief found^J .jpnn P^ 
 y*. p. 3- 
 
 Yet .we know not the Reafon of 
 many things we Believe. p. 4. 
 No Contradiction in the Terms by 
 which we Exprefs the H. Tri- 
 nity. p. 6. 
 
 . I. No Contradi&ion can be Charg'd 
 in any Nature we do not un- 
 derftand. Exemplify'd in the Dif- 
 ferent Natures of p. 7. 
 
 1. Sight and Afotion, 
 
 2. Body and S0///. 
 
 3. Tfwe and Eternity, 
 
 '"j' 
 Of Light and //(?4t in the 
 
 p. 12. 
 
 II. The word 
 <3od. 
 
 as Apply'd to 
 p. 9. 
 
 III. Of the & being as Old as the 
 Father, p, 1 1 . 
 
 IV. O{ the Produ&ion of Spirits. Ibid. 
 
 1. Of the Faculties in the S0o/. ibid. 
 
 2. Of the Difference betwixt Facul- 
 ties and Perfons. p- i<^. 
 
 3. Why we lay Ferfins and not 
 Faculties in. God. p. i? 
 
 4. Of the Difference betwixt F^- 
 <:/>/ and Pajfions. p. 1 8. 
 
 5. Of Ext en fan and Dimensions , 
 wherein of the Parable of the 
 Sander. ibid. 
 
 6 Apply'd to the Terfom and At- 
 tributes of GW. p. I p. 
 
 7. Thefe Conclulive to the Argu- 
 ment. p. 21 
 
 8. Allufions from Body to Soul ne- 
 ceflary, yet many Contradictions 
 in them- p.. 22^
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 5>. Apply'd to our prefent Sub- 
 ject, ibid. 
 
 io; We mufl think of Three in 
 
 every Spirit. p. 23. 
 
 V. If the Trinity were a Contraditti- 
 on-t that wou'd rove it not., 
 be of Human Indention. p. 
 
 1. The Obje&ion a to (Tranf-j 
 ftanfiation* 'Solv'd. ibi 
 
 2. No Allnfion or Parallel in Nature 
 to Tranf-fubftantiation. p. 26. 
 
 3. Compar'd with Con-fubftanjia-i 
 tion. p. "27. ' 
 
 VI. Allufions and Parotids neceflary 
 in our Contemplation of : the 
 Nature of God. p. 28. 
 
 VII. Self- Re flection an 
 Holy Trinity. 
 
 VIII. Of the 
 
 of the 
 p. 2. 
 
 Fecundity in the 
 p. 30. 
 
 1. Of a Third Perfon in the Trini- 
 ty -p. 32- 
 
 2. Why bat 0*e Production in" the 
 Deity. p. 33. 
 
 j. The fecond Perfon Begotten, the 
 third Proceeding. p 34. 
 
 4. The /#/y 677o// Proceedeth from 
 the Father andthe Son. p. 35. 
 
 5. Of the Terms Begetting and Pro- 
 ceeding. p. 3^. 
 
 ' ^ o ^o 
 
 IX. Of the Vnity of Go& ibid. 
 u The t;/ry of bodies. ibid. 
 
 2. The Vnity of Spirits. p. 37. 
 
 3. Apply'd toGW. ibid. 
 
 X. Of the mutual Communication of 
 
 p. 33. 
 
 1. Stronger than that of Bo- 
 dies, ibid- 
 
 2. ^Sufion^to this in Holy. m'pr 
 ^w-.- ibid. 
 
 3. XJfe of ~ Parallels. p. 40. 
 
 4. Adam a T^ff of Chrift. ibid. 
 
 cularly in her Formation, p. 41. 
 
 XPnBy the wdrll Go^Hfi H. Scrip' 
 ture the whole Bl. Trinity is 
 meant. p. 42. 
 
 Particular Atts Attributed to 
 Each. p. 43. 
 
 The word God fometimes Diftin- 
 - guilh'd. frpm the Father. And 
 the Deity Exprefs'd by the Per- 
 fens only. And the word Fa- 
 ther given to the Son. ibid. 
 
 XII. That the Heathen had ! 4'^t 
 ticn <if the Trinity^ g well as 
 the Jew. p. i*. 
 
 " fi>'t%^\ 5ff"t 4 Cn WOfly^ " i / 
 
 XIII. Afhort Recapitulation, p. 4 p. 
 Parallel of Two Natures in C^r/y?: 
 
 ^J*/5 
 
 XIV. The Current &/r of the 
 Church the Beft Interpreter of 
 the Holy Scriptures^ p. 52.* 
 
 The S/? of the Ante-Nicene Fa- 
 . - thers fhew'd in the 
 of the following 
 
 THE 
 
 Second DIALOGUE. 
 
 Concerning the Texts of Holy 
 Scripture which are brought 
 
 for
 
 C N T 
 
 "for the Proof of the Blefled 
 Trinity, and Divinity of Chri&. 
 
 XV. John. i. i... particularly Con- 
 fider'd. 
 
 1. The S<w a Diflind Pr/ from 
 
 the Father. 
 
 2. The //0/y ^o/ a Perfon. 
 
 3. The Heathens Notion of theZr0f. 
 
 4. The Jews Notion of if 
 
 5. Of the Word by Wature and by 
 Creation. 
 
 6. Jnfyiration muft Come from a 
 Perfon. -, v.^:A^'^ 
 
 7. What the Sodniam mean by i/w. 
 
 \^ \ "i i <o 
 
 - 
 
 XVI. The other Texts in H. Scrip- 
 ture In^uir'd into, in their or- 
 der. 
 
 1. Gen. i. 1. 
 
 2. Gen. i. 26> 
 ,3. Gen. 3. 22. 
 
 4. Gen. 11.6, 7. 
 
 5. Pfal. 45. 6. 
 
 6. Pfal. 68. 1 8. 
 
 7. Pfal. P7- 7. 
 .'8. Pljal. 1,02^^5. 
 
 p. Ilai. 6. i,, S,.p. i^ 
 10. IfaL 7^- r^. juv/ 
 n. Ifai. 8. 14. oifj 
 
 12. Ifai, p. 6, 7. 
 
 13. Ifai-:44. 6. ra,: 23;is> 
 
 14. Ifai. 48* fi tf*i oihi/j 
 
 15. jer. 23v 5,^A>;^L 
 
 16. Mich. 5. 2. 
 
 17. Zech, z- ^i-p^iJ. IX 
 1^8. Zech. S.-M. 
 
 i p. Zech.. 12. 20. 
 
 Teftimony of Tertullian that the 
 
 Trinity is Colkfted out of the 
 
 Vntty. 
 
 E N T S. 
 
 Anfwer to the Objettien why the 
 Trinity is not more Clearly 
 RevetTd in the Old Tejlamem. 
 
 THE 
 
 Third DIALOGUE, 
 
 TEexts out of the New-Tefa- 
 ment. 
 
 i . Matth. 12. 31. 
 -2. Matth. 28. 19,. 
 
 3. Joh. i. i. 
 
 4. Joh. 2. ip, 2u 
 
 5. Joh. 3. 13. 
 tf. Joh. 8. 38. 
 
 7. Joh. 10. 30. 
 
 8. Joh. 10. 33,, 
 
 p. Joh. 1 4/fi ',-).; 
 
 X-Q. Joh* 14. p. ^iTv* 
 n. Joh. 14. 14. 
 
 12. Joh. 1 5. 14. 
 
 Of the /ifo/y C7feo/? Appearing Ja 
 the Shape of a Dwe. 
 
 13. Joh. 17. 5. 
 
 14. Joh. 20. 28. 
 
 15. Aft. 5. 3- 4- 
 
 16. Aft. 7- 59- 
 
 17. Aft. p. 14, 21. 
 1 8. Aft. 15. 28. 
 
 IP. AS. 20. .2^ - ..-'.nvz 
 
 " 
 
 : 
 iu Rom. p. i. IVI 
 
 22. Rom. 2. 10. ;v; v -t 
 
 23. Rom. 10. i^,;>\. v 
 
 24. i Cor. 6. 19. 
 
 25. i Cor. 10. p. 
 
 26. J, Con 8. .9% 

 
 CO N T E N T S. 
 
 27. 2 Cor. 12. 8, 9. 
 
 28. 2 Cor. 13. 14. 
 
 29. Gal. i. i, 12. 
 
 30. Phil. 2. 5, 6, 7, 8. 
 
 31. Col. i. 15. 
 
 32. Col. i. 16. 
 
 33. Col. 2. 9. 
 
 34. 2. Their. 2. 1 5, 17. 
 
 35. i Tim. 6. 14, 15, 16. 
 
 36. Tit. 2. 13. 
 
 37. Heb. i. 2. 
 28. Heb. 7. 3. 
 
 39. Heb. 13. 8. 
 
 40. i Pet. i . ii. 
 
 41. i Pet. 3. 19, 20. 
 
 42. Joh. 5. 7. V; 
 
 43. i Joh. 5. 20. : 
 
 44 . Rev. 5. 5. 
 
 Chrift Called God. The Holy Sfirit 
 
 Called GW. 
 That the Trinity was the D&lrin 
 
 of the Church before the firfl 
 
 Council of jVfo, Pnov'd from 
 
 Lucian. 
 
 THE 
 
 Fourth DIALOGUE. 
 
 i. A General Anfiver as 
 f\ to the Te*rj TIrgM 
 by the Socinians againftj the Di- 
 vinity of Chrift. 
 2. To their Argument from the 
 being the /#*** of 
 
 3. To their Interpretation of Joh. 
 17- i, 2, 3. 
 
 4. Of i Cor. 8. 6. 
 
 5. To ChrtJFs having the Afli- 
 ftance of the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 6. To His being Call'd the Seed 
 of the Woman of Abraham of 
 David. And a Prophet like to 
 
 The Arguments of the Socinians 
 againft the Divinity of the /&/y 
 GboSt Anfwer'd 
 
 1. Tliat the Jfoly Ghoft is only 
 the Power or Wifdom of G"^. 
 
 2. That the /fr/y %'n> is obtain'd 
 of 6"W by our Prayers. 
 
 3. That no Prayers are made to 
 the S/jmr,. 
 
 4. That W is ipoke ot in the 
 Singular Number. 
 
 The Obje&ion of the Socinians. 
 That the Son or the Holy Ghoft 
 are not called God in the 
 
 XVIII. The Pretence of the 
 nians to Antiquity. Wherein 
 their Origin is -mewed to be 
 from Simon Magus, Continu'd 
 by after Herejicks Condemn'd bv 
 the Church. 
 
 The Socinians no Chttrch ! Difler- 
 ence 'twixt them, and the Ari- 
 ans. Comparifon 'twixt them 
 and the Mahometans. 
 
 XIX. The Credit the Socinians Ex- 
 peft by Alledging -fome Modern 
 Chriftian Writers as Favourers 
 <4f (keir Opinion. 
 
 L 1i *
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 1. Erafmus. 
 
 2. Grotius. 
 
 3. Petavius. 
 
 4. Epifcopius. 
 
 5. Sandius. 
 
 T H'E 
 
 Fifth DIALOGUE. 
 
 XX. A General Vim and Ap- 
 jf"\ plication of what has 
 been faid. 
 
 1. The Word GW in 7/0/y 5m/?- 
 tare is taken moft Commonly 
 in a Complex Senfe, as including 
 all the Three Per fins : And feme* 
 times it is taken Perfonally for 
 the Father. 
 
 2. The Socinians Hold: a Trinity 
 more Unaccountable tnan what 
 is held by the Christians. 
 
 3. The Socinians own their 7fcr- 
 pr stations of the H. Scriptures 
 to be Contrary to the Church. 
 
 4. Pretended Obfcurity in Scripture^ 
 not the Caufe. 
 
 5. The Rule of Interpretation in 
 the Cafe of the Anthropromerphits, 
 will not ferve in Cafe of the 
 
 6. Nor in the Cafe of Trans-Sub 
 ftantiation. 
 
 7. Concetijiag Afyftcries. 
 
 THE 
 
 Sixth DIALOGUE. 
 
 XXI. {~*\^ the Satisfaction made 
 V-/ by Chrijt for our 
 
 1 . The Objection, That by this Got 
 made the Satisfaction to fjtytfejy. 
 Anfwer'd. 
 
 2. How the Legal Sacrifices w< 
 Accepted as Satisfaction. 
 
 3. The Neceflity of Satisfaction ftjbm 
 the Nature of Juftice. 
 
 Wherein Jam. 2. j 3. Explain'i 
 
 4 . Of C/;r//? Confider'd only 
 Mediator. 
 
 5. Reafons the Socinians give 
 the Z>e^ of G&r(/?. 
 
 To Confirm His Doclrin. 
 
 To (hew GWj H atred to l Sin. 
 
 6. Chritt Confider'd in His Types. 
 
 7. Several Texts mewing, That our 
 Redemption is by the Death of 
 
 for 
 
 8. God's Covenant wl\tfh Ckrift, 
 not Arbitrary. 
 
 S>. The Objection Anfwer'd, That 
 the Btoctrin of Satisfaction is an, 
 Obstruction to P/V^y. 
 
 10. The Neceffit'y of a Satisfaction 
 Urg'd from the Nature of Love, 
 as well as of Juftice. And that 
 our Happinefs Confifts therein, 
 and without, it we muft be Ml- 
 ferable, even by a Natural Con- 
 feqaence. 
 
 The Angels of Heaven are Recon- 
 c//W by Chris?*
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 1 1 . The Objection, That if Chrlft 
 Underwent the whole Ptinifi- 
 tnent of Sin, He muft have had 
 Deftalr. 
 
 12. That He muft have futfer'd 
 Eternally. Both Anfwer'd. 
 
 XXII. Of the Eternity of He'll. 
 
 1. Of the Punifomcnt being Pro- 
 portionable to the Offence. 
 
 2. The Chief W of Religion. 
 
 3. If Religion may be Preach* d, with- 
 out Leave of the 
 
 ment. 
 
 4. All this Apply'd to the -Dodriii 
 of Satisfaction. 
 
 5. Of Chrift Introducing the Cove- 
 nant of Repentance. 
 
 6. The Law and the Cfo/jp*/ the 
 fame Covenant. 
 
 taking Our Sin upon Him, 
 
 was Typified in the Prieft's Eat- 
 ing 'the Sin-Offering* 
 
 8. He made Himfelf --Liable to our 
 _Dek, by becoming our 5w*jy. 
 He is our Ho ft age. 
 
 Heb. 7. 22. Explain'd. 
 
 9. The Socinian Interpertation of 
 
 Ifai. 53- ii- 
 
 10. A Kotable Argun.ent of the 
 
 ) to Excufe themfelves 
 
 for Denying the Divinity of 
 Chrift. 
 
 Arguments of the Socinians to 
 Prove. 
 
 1. That the Doflrin of the -Trini- 
 ty is not Fundamental -to Chri- 
 stianity. 
 
 2. That the Socinian f ought not 
 to be put under any Penalties 
 by the Law. 
 
 3. That we ought "to own them 
 as our Chrittlan Brethren, 
 
 None Sa?'d -but by the .Satisftftiwt. 
 
 of ChriSt. 
 Concering that faying in the Creed 
 
 of St. AtJpanafytSy without Doubt 
 'jhall jerijh. 
 The Socinian Faith. 
 Compar'd with the Chriftian. 
 "We muft Work, becaufe God Works 
 
 In and With Us. 
 : -Yet we muft be Vn-Clothed of 
 
 them all, and Clothed in the 
 
 Righteoufnefs of Chrift. 
 An jlffleal to the Socinians. 
 1 he Grace of God neceflary to 
 
 Work true Faith in Us. 
 A Perfuafive Inference from tlic 
 
 whole 
 
 **. .0
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The Years of Ckrijl in which thofe Ante-nicene Fathers flourifhed, 
 whom I have Quoted in the following Dialogues, and the 
 Editions, that you miftake not where I have Quoted the 
 Page. And if any other Edition happens to be Quoted, the- 
 Edition is told. 
 
 Year of Chriflr. 
 
 ST. Barnabas the Apoftle Oxon. i6%<$. 
 $Ujl>er 7 s Edit. Oxon. i644.Gr.Lat. 
 St. Ignatius. $ Ist ro j- Si Edit Londt ! 6go< Gr> 
 
 St. Jiftinus Martyr. -- H p arlfts. 1636. Gr. Lat. 
 
 St. Irenaus. I(5 7 Pariffis 1639. 
 
 Clemens Alexandrine. - -- IP^ P^n/. 1641. Gr. Lat. 
 
 230 Rothomagi. i<568. Gr. Lat. Tom, 
 St. Cyfnamsi *4* Ow^/*.. 1682, 
 
 THE 

 
 :3h?:rcri <: sd ili v/ 
 
 i 02 f 
 
 
 4 . I ^ _ . 
 
 , . , , - r _ 
 
 Ho r A o2 i<: 
 ' 
 
 'io niio'i^i' * w ^D ! 
 
 iJ * W -c 
 
 SECOND DIALOGUE 
 
 
 
 Concerning the Texts of Holy Scripture, 
 which are brought for the Proof of the 
 BlefTed Trinity, and Divinity of 
 
 . 
 
 SQC1NIAN. ~T 7T ou h ave Promised f a i r> if y OU 
 
 can Perform Equally. But be- 
 fore we begin with the Texts 
 in the order they are Quoted in 
 our Brief Hi (lory, I defire you wou'd give me one of 
 your Mafterly Texts, as you think, for the Proof of your 
 Doctrin ; that we may Confider it more fully by it felf, 
 than the Time will allow us in Running over the many 
 other Texts Quoted. 
 
 CHRISTIAN. With all my Heart: And this will de- *v. 
 terrain the Caufe, in a manner, before it be Determin'd. particularly ' 
 And befides, will make my.Anfwer to your Interprets Confider 'd. 
 non of the other Texts both Shorter > and P/*/0*r, . and 
 faye^many Refttiticws. 
 
 The Text that I offer for this, is, Job. i. i. In the 
 beginning was the word, wd fke word was with God, atd 
 the work was God. In order to Underftand this more 
 
 B Perfeaiy
 
 The fecond DIALOGUE. 
 
 Perfeftly, it will be neceflary to know upon what Oc~ 
 cafein, and with Refpeft to whom, the Apoflle wrote 
 this. 
 
 Ther was at that time one Cerinthus, an Arch-Heretick 
 and Difciple of Simon Magus, who affirm'd that Jefets 
 was the Son of Jofeph and Mary. That Chrifl or the 
 Word came upon Him, in the Form of a Dove, at his 
 Baptifrx, and Infpir'd him with the Knowlege of God 
 the Father, and with the Power of working Miracles. 
 That when Je/us fuffer'd, Cbrift left Him, and flew up 
 into Heaven without Partaking any thing of his Suffer- 
 ings. It was againft this Cerinthus and his Followers, that 
 St. John wrote his Gofpet, when he was ReturnM to 
 Ephefus, after the Death of Domitian. See Iren. 1. i . c. 
 25. 1. }. c. II. Epiphan. Her. 22. &c. 
 
 Thefe Hereticks being Bervildred in their Imaginations, 
 and given up to the Delusions of Satan, Faney'd to them- 
 felves feveral jEone s or Age/, which they faid God Pro- 
 duc'd after one another. Of thefe St. Irenxus gives us 
 a large Account. One of theie they Call'd 2ty)i Si- 
 lence, from whence they faid the KQJ& or Word did 
 Proceed: Whence St. Ignatius, in oppofition to them, 
 calls Chrifl the &6y@ d&i@u BX ctTro 2^r$ irgftt&'jtiv that 
 is, T^^ Eternal Word, not proceeding from Silence. Epift, 
 ad Magnes. 
 
 This was in Purfuance to what his Mafler St. John 
 (whofe Diftiple be Was) had wrote againft thefe fame 
 Hereticks, beginning his Gofpel in the words of this Text, 
 Aflerting the Word of God not to have been any of thefe 
 fancy'd jEoxes, Produc'd in Time, but to have been in 
 the Beginning with God, and to be God. And Grotius 
 upon this Text fays, that In the Beginning was a com- 
 mon Hebrew Phrafe whereby to Exprefs Eternity. Sicut 
 mos eft Hebrtis ALtermtatem popttUriter defcribere. And 
 bis Authority is the more confiderable to you, becaufe 
 
 your
 
 econct DIALOGUE. 
 
 Brief Hiftory fays, p. 31. That H GROTIV$ t 
 lAN J 4r. 
 
 * - 
 
 ^ * - 
 
 Ther were others concern'd betides thefe Hereticks in 
 'what St. Jofm wrote concerning the Ao^,, that was, 
 the jfftw and the Heathens. And it Will be neceffary 
 alfo to know what their Notion Was of the Logos , that 
 we may fee how the Afofile adapted what he faid to 
 all of them, And this I will fhew you prefently, when 
 I come to anfwer what your Brief Hijlory of the Uni- 
 tarians, fays to this Text, from which I will .no longer 
 detain you. 
 
 SOC. He fays, p. 8$. That by the word is only meant 
 God's Power and Wifdom t which is not fomething dif- 
 ferent from God, but being His Wifdom and Power, is 
 God. 
 
 He fays Hkewife, p. 84. That the Appellation of God 
 is given to Angels and Men. As Mofes was call'd a God 
 to Pharaoh. Exod. 7. i. 
 
 CHR. Thefe two anfwers which the ////?. of Vnita. 
 gives to this Text, do Contradid one another. The 
 firfl fuppofes the Word to be Real God. The Second 
 to be but Man, and call'd God in a. Borrowed Senfe as 
 ther are Gods by Office or Deputation from God. Thefrfl 
 anfwer makes the Word not to be any thing Different 
 from God. The Second fays that it is MM and net 
 God. 
 
 SOC. Thefe two anfwers I confefs cannot well ftand 
 together 5 they cannot both be true. But let us fee if 
 either of them will hold. Therefore pray fatisfy me as 
 to the firft anfwer ; that is, that by the Word of God aoy 
 more is meant than the Power or Wifdom of God, as we 
 fay the Power or Wifdom of a Man, by which nothing 
 is meant different from the Man. 
 
 CHR. You remember what we have difcours'd, That 
 Properties in Body, and Faculties in Soul, are Perfons in 
 God. And the reafons why it muft IK fo. And there- 
 
 B 2
 
 4 .The $co*d VIALOGV E. 
 
 for the fofdom of a Man is not a diftind Perfon in Man 
 but if is btnerwife in God, whofe Wifdom is a diftind Hy- 
 pojtafes, that is, a Subfftence, or P^ in his Nature. 
 
 SOC. I Remember this very well, and what has been 
 faid upon it; but we are now upon the point of Scrip- 
 iure\ and. therefore I defire, that you wou'd fhew me 
 from Scripture ^ that the Word, is a diftind Perfon from God 
 
 CtiR. You have not rumembred exadly, for we do 
 not fay, That any of the Perfons of God are ditfinft 
 from God ? But they are diftind In God. God, is as it 
 were a Specie s to all the Perfons; tho' it be fometimes 
 more .particularly apply'd to the Firfi Perfon, as has been 
 fhewn. The Nature of God is One, and the three Per- 
 fins are all In it. And ther is an Example of this a- 
 mong Men. We do not fay that 'Jchn is a diftind 
 Perfon from Human Nature; but he is a diflinft Per- 
 fon In Hwman Nature. That is, he is a diftindi Perfon 
 ~ from Other Per fan's who partake equally of the fame Na- 
 ture. John is a diftind Perfon from Peter ^ and Peter 
 from Joha ; but neither of them is diftind from that M*- 
 ture of which he partakes, and which confequemly is 
 his own Nature -That wouM be, to be diftmd from 
 tiimfelf. The Deitinction is not in the Nature for a 
 Diftindion cannot be 'twixt One. But the Diftindion is 
 'twixt fever at Perfons who are united in the fyue Na* 
 ture. Thus the Son is a Diftind Perfon from the Father 
 but not from God, unlefs where God is taken for the 
 father. 
 
 SOC. I fee my miftake in this. Therefore, pray go 
 on and fhew, that the word, is SL diftind Perfon In God 
 or from the Father. 
 
 lt CHR. I prove it, becaufe Perfonal Adions are attribu- 
 
 The son a ted to Him.- And becaufe he is fet up as the Obiedof 
 
 d wor- 
 
 i. e. C^/y/, whom St. Johft calls T/^ word. 
 And I think you will not difpute that any thing but a* 
 
 Per-
 
 The Jecom/ VIALOGV . 5 
 
 Perfon can be an object of Worfljip : Therefor, if Chrifl 
 be a Perfon, which you confefs, the Word muft be a 
 Perfon, becaufe you cannot deny that in the Firft of St. 
 -John, He is calPd the Word. 
 
 I (hall have occafion to (hew you hereafter, that the 
 Chaldee Paraphrafe and the Jem/b Targams do all along, 
 in the Old Te fitment, make the word of Jehovah Synoni- 
 rnous with Jehovah Himfelf, and yet a Diftincl Per/on, 
 from Him ; and do attribute to the Word the lame Per- 
 final Affions, as to Jehovah', and to be Equally Adorable 
 as Jehovah. As, the word of Jehovah Raining down fire 
 from Jehovah upon Sodom. Gen. 19. 24. The word of Je~ 
 hovah fhall be my God. Gen. 28. 21. Abraham wor- 
 fhiped and called upon the name of the word of Jehovah, 
 and faid Thou art Jehovah, &c. more of this I will (hew 
 you, when I come to Explain what Notion the Jews had 
 of the Logos or word of God, how they efteem'd Him 
 to be both God, and a Diftinft Perfov. But now, as to 
 the Scripture, in the. plain words of the Text. Pfaj, no, 
 i . The Lord faid unto my Lord^ fit Thou on my Right hand, 
 till I make Thms Enemies Thy Foetftool. That the Second 
 Lord, here fpoken of was Chrifl is plain from Matt. 22. 
 44. and that the Jews fo Underftood it ; whence the Tar- 
 gum of Jonathan renders it thus, The Lord hid to His 
 word. In the Language of St. Jobx, who calls Chrift the 
 word of God. And ther cannot be a greater Diftinftion 
 of Per Jons , than one to Speak to the other, one to fit on 
 the others Right Hand, one to Subdue the others^E^- 
 mies, &c. . 
 
 And therefor where it is faid, The word is God, by 
 the word a Perfon muft be meant, and not only a Property 
 or Attribute of God. Which, as your Author fays, is. 
 not fomething different from God, but is God^ and yet in 
 the very fame anfwer he fays,. th*t it is fo God, that it ^ p '^ : 
 is not all that God is. This is as unintelligible to me as 
 the Trinity can be to him, To-be Gad and to be nothing 
 
 different
 
 Ue feconct DIALOGV E. 
 afferent from God ; and yet to be fo God as not to "be 
 all that God- is! This is paft all Human Underftanding, for 
 if you be not All that God is, you cannot be God, but a 
 Piece of God, and if you be not fomething different from 
 God, then you muft be aH that God is. 
 
 SOC The Def. of the Hiftory, pag. 44. means no more 
 by, The word was God, then that the word was in fome 
 manner like God. 
 
 CHR. He does not deferve an Anfwer. Let bis Hi- 
 ftorian anfwer him, or let him anfwer the Hifffrian f fot 
 in this, he difputes againft him inftead of defending him. 
 Nay, let this Defender anfwer himfelf, he fays, p. $j. 
 that the Knowlege which Cbrift had was by the Di- 
 vine Word abiding on him, which agrees with the Hi- 
 ftorian, p. 120. who likewife tells of the Divine Word 
 feeing communicated to Angels and Men, p. 83. and 84. 
 and that the word WAS made Flejb means no more than 
 the words abiding on or inhabiting an Human Perfon, 
 the Perfon of Jefus, p. 87. fo that here the word is kept 
 as a diftincl thing from Jefas, and according to this the 
 word was not a Man, was not Jtfar, but only did In- 
 fpire Jefits; and yet the Defender p. 46. fays exprefly, 
 and gives it as his Paraphrafe upon that Text, The 
 word WAS made FUflj, that the word did not only Inhabit 
 and Infpirc Jefus but was that Man Jefus- thefe are the 
 words of his Paraphrafe. The word (Jefus) was A Man 
 like unto us in all things, Sin only excefted, and to fortify 
 this, he quotes Mr. Ltmborck, fpeabing thefe words. The 
 true Senfe of this Plate, is, that the WORD WAS FLESH, 
 that is, & TRVB FLESHLT SVBSTJNCE, ftbject to 
 4ti the Infirmities that attend our Flefa that is to fej, He 
 was Mortal, Vile, and Contemptible, which appeared wore 
 efpeciafy in the Days of His Paffion and of His Death, 
 whtch are called Heb. 5. 7. THE DATS OF HIS FLESH 
 that is, the Flefi, Death, Paffion, &c. of the WORD OF 
 GOD. And yet in the fame place he fays, now is it not 
 
 more
 
 The fecond DIALOGUE. 
 
 more agreeable to Reafon and Scripture to interpret theft 
 word* thus tbtn to fay, THE WORD WAS 1NCAR- 
 NAT, which is A Language unknown tv Scripture, &c. 
 
 Is not this Aftonifhing ! Pray, what is the difference 
 'twixt, The word wax made Flejb, and the word was Incar- 
 nat, but that made Flefh is the Englifb for Incarnatl Do 
 thefe Men fpeak againft Myfteries! 
 
 Ther are multitudes of more Quotations out of Scrip- 
 ture, may be given to prove the Word, to be a Perfon. 
 Joh# i. 14. The Word was wade Flefo. You will not fay 
 it was the Bible that was made Flefh? Or any outward 
 Speech or Declaration of Gods ? Was it not a Per fan that 
 was made Fiefb. 
 
 SOC. By God's word there, is meant God Himfelf, and 
 not any thing diftinft from God, as I told you juft 
 now. 
 
 CHR. Was it God Himfelf than that was made Flefh ? 
 SOC. The word was made Flefh, that is, Did abide on, Hift. 
 and Inhabit an Human Perfon ; *nd fo WAS in appearance P- 8 7- 
 made Flefh or Man, or the word became Incarnat, that 
 is, abode on the Perfon of Jefas Cbrift. S5 
 
 CHR. I muft ftill ask, what was it that was made Flefh 
 or Man ? If by the Word of God you mean God Himfelf^ 
 then God was made Man, which you will not allow. 
 
 If you mean only fome outward Spiech or Declaration 
 of His, as the Book of the Scriptures, or the like. Then 
 that Book was made Man or Incarnat. 
 
 SOC. You do not obfervc that he fays, the word was 
 in appearance, made Man. 
 
 CHR. I did obferve it, and fee the utmoft pains ta- 
 ken to efcape the force of this Text. But this, like all 
 other Fallacious Subterfuges will involve you in greater 
 difficulties: For was ther nothing really made flejb in this 
 Text ?* Thofe Hereticks wou*d be beholding to you, who 
 fay that Chri/l affum'd only a Body of Air, and iuffer'd 
 
 only
 
 The jecwct DIALOGUE. 
 only in Appearance and Show^ but had no real Flefh or 
 
 But thefe your Hi ft. calls f&lfe Profiets <txd Teachers, 
 
 p, 15 1 ' 
 
 But pray how did the Word appear to be Flefh ? Or 
 how was it Imarnatl 
 
 SOC. Becaufe it did Infpire or abede on the Perfon of 
 Jefus. 
 
 CHR. Do's that make it -Ekfb ?Or appear to be Flejb ? 
 
 SOC, I dare not fay that, for it did Infpire the Pro- 
 pbets, and Patriarchs ; and the Spirit of God Infpires every 
 Holy perfon. But it was in Chrift in A more Eminent 
 manntr. 
 
 CHR. Does that make it Flefbt Does the Spirit of 
 God contract the Nature of itlefh, when it Infpires a 
 Perfon who has Flejb* It infpir'd Mofes more than other 
 Prophets, and the Prophets more than other Men: Is 
 it therefor more Flefb in a Prophet than in another Saint f 
 Or, can you fay that it is Flefh at all, by any Infpiration 
 /f .gives to Men? Does -/> Contraft Corruption and be- 
 come T/e/^, by its Injpiration of M< ? Can 7f be tainted 
 by touching one Nature? Is the Spirit Incarnat whenat 
 abides upon any A/*#? 
 
 50C. All- thefe you fpeik of did partake of Gods Spi- 
 rit, or Infpiration in their feveral Degrees, But it is 
 laid of Cbrift, That God giveth not the Spirit by meafure 
 unto Him ; what Alteration this will make, is to be 
 Confider'd. 
 
 CHR. It is indeed, and by the Argument you have 
 already heard, it will prove Chrift to be God\ for as 
 we faid before, nothing can hold //*/?*//, but InfmtJ 
 And therefor nothing can hold the Spirit of God, without 
 meafure, that is the whole Spirit of God, bat what is it 
 felf as Infwit and without meafure, as that Spirit. 
 * '-^-' 1 - *'- "'' '^'-j. 

 
 The-'fecontf DIAL GV E. $ 
 
 Irertxtts (advef. Her. I. 5. e. ij.j Difputes againftthofe 
 who faid that Jefus was the Receptacle; of Chrift, uppq 
 whom Chrift Defcended like a Dove ; So you fee this is 
 no new fhift of our Authors to avoid this Text. 
 
 Origin (in John, p. 416. 2. TomJ fays, That the Sox 
 is the Brightness of all Gods Glory,' as it is deliver'd by 
 PAul. Heb. i. 3. who being the Brightnefs of his Glory* 
 But ther are particular BrightnefTe-s,' which come from 
 this Brightnefs of all the Glory. But none, can partake 
 of the Whole Brightnefs of *// Gods Glory $-rt$/ ViS 
 Except His Son. And, fays he, if you add His Spirit 
 too, you will think and fpeak moft truly and perfectly 
 of God. Thefe are the words of Origin. 
 
 SOC. I muft not now be Diverted, I have had my 
 faying to that Argument already. Therefore J defire to 
 know if you have any more to prove the Diverfity of 
 ferfoKs in God, or, which is the fame, that either of the 
 two, the Wordy ^or the Spirit, are Perfons. 
 
 CHR. John. 1 6. 13, 14. Chrift fays of the Spirit rr 2. 
 He ft &1L not. fpeak of Hi wf elf, He {ball receive cf mine, and The Holy 
 jhew it to you \ and in anfwer to this, the Hip. of viu. Gh ^ zFer ^" 
 pag. 99. fays, That of thofe who are VnitAriws, all the 
 Art tins and 'very m&ny Socixiaw do acknowledge that the Holy 
 Spirit is a PERSON. 
 
 SOC. But in the fame Place, they deny Him to be God. 
 And make Him only Chief of the Heavenly Spirits, and, 
 -prime Minifter of God, and of Chrift.. 
 
 CHR. Then you make Him not only to be a Creature, 
 but to be a Subjed or Minifter to another Creature, which 
 is Chrift. ^ 
 
 SOC. I cannot help that. 
 
 CHR. But what fay you of the Word of God? Is that 
 a Creature too? 
 
 SOC. The Divine Wifdom and Fewer is calVd, The Word. 
 As faid before. 
 
 C CHR.
 
 io The feconcf DIALOGV E. 
 
 CHR Does the Wiflom or Pwer of God differ from 
 the Spirit of Ged? 
 
 SOU. No fare, for what is the Wifdom or Power of a 
 Man, but the Spirit of a Man ? They are but different 
 Expreffions of the fame thing. 
 
 CHR. Then the Word of God, and the Spirit of God 
 are the fame thing. 
 
 SOC. Yes. At irioft but a different Expreflion of the 
 fame thing. And we ufe thcfe words Promifcuoufly ; The 
 Word or Power of God abiding on Chrift, and the Holy 
 Ghoft or Spirit is Meerly the Power of God, ? fays the Hijl. 
 of we Vxita. p. 4, 7$. 125. 
 
 CHR. And in what you have quoted before, upon the 
 Text. "John. i. i. The word was God. The Hijl. of the 
 Vnita. fays that the Word (or Divine IVtflon and Power) 
 is not fonte thing different from God ; but being His Wif- 
 dont and Power is God. 
 
 But, pag. 99. you fay, That the Hoi) Spirit is not God> 
 or a God. 
 
 SOC. That was* but the Opinion of forae of the 'Uni- 
 tarians. 
 
 CHR. Your Hiflory fays it was the Opinion of a& 
 the Arians and very many Socinians. 
 
 SOC. Well I That is buty^<? of the Vnitarians ftiD, 
 
 CHR. It is the major Part by much of your Con- 
 gregation, and the moft ancient Part. 
 
 SOC. I believe we muft give off the Arians. 
 
 CHR. Nay, we will have 'very many of the Socinians 
 too, by the Confeflion of your own Hiflory. 
 
 SOC. I confefs we Vnitarians are Divided. 
 
 CHR. And worfe than that, you lofe all your pre- 
 tence to Antiquity. For you muft not derive your felves 
 from the Arians, no nor from Socinians neither, for very 
 many of his Difciples are againft you. 
 
 3bn 16. SOC. I care not for Antiquity, nor Universality, Truth is 
 > '4- not carry 'd by Votes. Let u&cometo the Argument; Chrift 
 
 fays,
 
 Tbefeconcf DIALOG V E. n 
 
 fays, That ths Sfirit ft a/I not fptak of Himfelf. - 
 (hall receive of mine, and flyew it to you. To this Objefti- 
 on you have repeated one Anfwer of a/I the Arians, and 
 wry many Socians ; and I muft own, upon' our Principled, 
 that you have Confuted it. 
 
 But ther is a fecond Anfwer there given, p. 99. which 
 is that I flick too, and that is, That Attions proper to 
 Perfons are, by A Figure, apptfd to things, and even to 
 Qualities of things. As God's Commands are call'd Coun- 
 cellours ; Wifdorn is faid to lift up her Voice, build her Houfe, 
 hew out her feven Pillars, &c. And this is the Anfwer 
 my Author gives to John. i. j. all things were made by 
 him, (the Word ;) for here, fays he, the word begins to 
 be fpoken of as a Perfon, by the fame figure of Speech Hiftt ^ 
 that Solomon faith, Wifdom Hath builded her Houfe, &c. 
 
 But farther, the Def. of the Hifl. p. 40. fays, that the 
 Creation of the world cannot be prov'd from this Tekt?> 
 That all things were made by the Word-, becaufe he fays, 
 that the words Heaven, Ear tit or Sea, are never omitted 
 in the Defcriptions we have in Scripture of the firft arid 
 true Creation. For you muft know that this Defender 
 of our Hiftorian underftands all this PafTage in the frfi 
 of St. John, not of the Creation, but only of the firft 
 Propagation of the Gofpel. 
 
 CHR. Then he thinks that Heaven, Earth and Sea, 
 are not included in all things that were madet But he is . 
 very pofitive that the Creation is never mentionM in 
 Scripture without mentioning Heaven, Earth, or Sea. 
 And confequently that where it mentions the Creation 
 of Heaven, Earth or Sea, it is never attributed to Chrift. 
 This is a very bold AfTertion, but it is neceffary to 
 his Caufe, to avoid the plain Texts which fpeak of the 
 World being made by Chrtft. Let us fee therefore if we 
 can pleafe him in his own Method, tho' it be no ways 
 necerfary ; for none of Common Senfe can deny, but the 
 Creation may be Spoke of in General words, which in- 
 
 C * elude
 
 The-fecom/ D'lALOGV E. 
 
 elude all Particulars, without mentioning the particulars* 
 or any of them. 
 
 But to take way all his excufe, thefe Words are exprefty 
 apply 'd to Chri/l. Heb, i. 10. Thou Lord in the Beginning 
 baft laid the Foundation of the EARTH And the HEAVENS 
 are the work of thine Hands. We (hall have occafion to clear 
 tins, further by and* by. wr/i" a-, it is faid -by whom (Chrift) : 
 He (God) made the World. But your Author will not let 
 this mean the Creation,becaufe the words Heav&n or Earth or 
 Sea are not there, for the fame reafon he will except againft 
 ver. 3. of Chap. ii. The Worlds were frairid by the Word of 
 God, fo that things which are* feen^ were not made of things that 
 do appear. Thefe, things which are feen muft be Heaven, 
 Earth or Sea., But it is no matter, if they be not nam'd it 
 fhall not do :Befidesthe Afoftle.'is here making a Regular 
 Dedu&ion down all along from the Creation, which he be- 
 gins verf. 3. in the words I have Repeated, then verf. 
 4. he comes to Abel, verf. 5. to Enoch, verf. 7. to- Noah 
 verf. 8. to Abraham, and fo on. But all this is nothing, 
 that muft not be the Creation whence this Narration be* 
 gins, but it (hall be what came to pafs, feme thoufand 
 years after, and which has ; no Relation to the Narrative 
 the Apoftle has in hand. But that the Creation may be 
 meant without the Mention of Heaven, Earth or Sea, ap- 
 pears from A& 17. 24. there it is faid. God that madtthe 
 World *and all .things therein. That this was fpoken of the 
 Creation no Sociniaa dare deny. It is St. Paul's Argument 
 to the Heathen Idolaters, who kaew nothing of the Gof- 
 pel being calPd the Creation of the World. Indeed Hea- 
 ven and Earth are mentioned afterward, where it is faid 
 that God is Lord of Heaven and Earth, but ther is no 
 mention of Heavt or Earth, where it fpeaks of the Crea- 
 tion, and fo fpoilt .our Authors Obfervation. Tho' if it 
 were Granted him, it cou'd do him no Service, becaufe 
 the Creation is attributed to Chrifl, with exprefs mention 
 of Heaven and Earth, as before is (hewn, Heb.* i. 10. 
 
 again
 
 The fecond D lA'LO 6 V E. ,*V 
 
 again. Cot. i. 16. By Him. (Chrift) were all things Created 
 that are in Heaven, and that are iff Earth. And ther are 
 fcveral other Texts to the fame purpofe. 
 
 But ther is nothing better to confute a Socinian then 
 plainly to fet down his Paraphrafe, and fhew hpw it fills 
 the words of the Text: ~ Thus then the Def. of tk* Hiftory 
 Paraphrafes this Verf. Job* *Z^$la1l things were made by 
 him, and without him, ' was not any " thing made, that WAS 
 made. Paraphrafe. All things neceffaty to the Propagation 
 of the Gofpely were Performed by him'. Andwithout his Directi- 
 on there, was not any thing perfornidfthat was per formed. 
 
 A little of this art wou'd turn the whole Chap, of Gen. 
 from meaning the Creation, or any thing elfe. lam 
 weary of purfuing fuch Extravagance. 
 
 But let Creation mean only the Preaching of the Gof- 
 pel, or what you pleafe, yet is not that it felf a Perjonal 
 Aftion? How come you then to deny the Word to be a 
 Perfont You dare not truftyour Caufe, and allyour D& ; ' 
 fence is becaufe Wifdom is laid to Live, &rc. 
 
 I have told you already, That the Second Perfon 
 of the Trinity is defcrib'd by the name of Wifdom, in 
 the Proverbs Particularly, and in many other Scriptures. 
 But I need not this now, for I will freely acknowlege, 
 That Actions proper to Perfons are fometimes, by a Fk 
 gure, apply'd to-'tbings, and even Qualities, 
 
 But at the fame time you will allow me, that ther 
 is a way to diftinguifh 'twixt Figures and Plain fpeak- 
 ing; and that a Figure will not -do in every place; and that 
 notwithstanding -^ figures y we may deftinguifh Perfons from 
 Qualities. And no where more plainly than in the pre- 
 fentCafe.-. How cou'd you diftinguilh one Perfon not to 
 be another Perfon ; or 'chat the thing you fpeak of is not 
 a naked Quality , more than to fay, He fhafl not fprak of 
 Himfelf He fhall receive of mim^ and fhew it to you ? 
 
 Do men ufe to fay, that a Quality (hall not fpeak of it- 
 felf, which certainly cannot fpeak at all ? Wou'd you make 
 
 Chrift,
 
 14 The feccn/ VIA LOGV E. 
 
 Ckrifl guilty of : fuch : a figure of Speech 28 this ? Do men 
 fay that a Qualitij. ; (hall Receive of one, and give- it tto 
 Another ? If thefe be not Marks by which to dtftinguifti 
 Perfons, I wou'd defire to know any others that are more 
 certain. ;!<f . 
 
 All Actions are Ptrfopat A&ions: And when they are 
 afcrib'd to QuditieS) it means, That it was by fuch Qua- 
 lity* that the fyrfon perform'd fuch an Aftion, other wife 
 it is not proper to afcribe Perfonal Actions to Qualities. 
 
 You will fay it was great Wifdom, Built fuch a Fabrick, 
 Ere&ed fuch a Monarchy, .or the like effects of Wifdomi 
 But you- 6\o not fay, That Wifdom walks in the Garden^ 
 Piyks fuch a Horfe, or calls fuch a Man by his Name, or 
 grants him a Commiffion to go to fuch a Piact, to do fuch 
 things, which otherwife he had not Authority to do, let 
 him have never fo rnuch Wifdem as to Command a Troop 
 of ffprfi r to be Governor of fuch a Tmm, to Grant a Par- 
 4iior,,the like, Thefe are a little too Per fond ro afcribe 
 to naked Qualities 9 and no man wou'd underftand you, 
 if you fpeak at fuch a Rate, you might as well give a 
 Qpdity Power to Raife Money, declare War againft France, 
 and name every Ambaffdor, and fay Lord B ihaU not 
 not go, but Lord D-r-^ {hall g0. 
 
 SUC. This indeed wou'd be out of all roads of Speaking, 
 but can you find that the Holy Gbofl ever fpoke fo par- 
 ticularly as this, and nam'd Perfons of Himfelf to do this 
 or that, without Acting by Minifters, that is Infpiring 
 Prof bets to name Men, and the like. 
 
 CHR. Yes, as pofitively as ever was faid of any Pfrfon, 
 and in Actions as Per/onal and Particular. 
 
 A~a. 13.2. . The Holy Ghoft fad feperate me Barnabas and Saul, for 
 the Work ^hereunto I haw called them. 
 
 The Spirit faid unto PHILIP ', go near and join fly 
 
 9 'felfto this Chariot. And again, The Spirit of the Lord caught 
 
 away Philip, ver. 39. Was not this a Perfonal Adion ? Cou'd 
 
 a naked Quality catch a Man up in the Air, and carry 
 
 him
 
 The feconc/ D I A LOGV E. 
 
 carry him from one place to another? The Spirit fM 
 unto Peter, behold three Men feek thee. Aft 10. 19, Peter 
 cou'd not tell by his own Wifdom, that ther were three 
 Men feeking him ; therefor this cannot be made Parallel 
 to the Expreffion of Wifdom building A Hoafe, or the like 
 Effefts of Wifdom in a Man ; for this was no Effect of 
 any Wifdom in Peter, but a Revelation to him from the 
 Spirit; which therefor muft be a Perfon. 
 
 It is not calPd a Revelation which I fincfc out by any 
 Wifdom God has given me. 
 
 Chrift fays, / mil fend the Comforter to you from the 
 Father. Do Men fend Qualities of Errands ? Is not the 
 Sender a different Perfon from him that is fent? Or 
 do's a Man fend himfelf from -himfelfi Befidcs Chrtft was 
 Conceived by the Holy Ghojl in the Womb of the Vir- 
 gin, which fure is a Perfonal A&ion. Naked Qualities 
 do not ufe to Beget or Generate. 
 
 SOC. This muft be ConfiderM of: But go on. 
 
 CHR. I wou'd defire you to tell me what Spirit it 
 was which Chrift fpeaks of, Joh. 16. ij 5 14. wfeere he 
 fays, That the Spirit (hall not fpeak of Htmfelf, &c. 
 
 SOC. That is told you in the fecond Anfwer which 
 we are now upon pag. 100. of Brief Hiftory. That it 
 was the Holy Spirit, or Power of God. 
 
 CHR. Is this Spirit or Power any thing different from 
 God? 
 
 SOC. No. That has been told you already from 
 pag. 8j. where it is faid in plain and exprefs Terms, 
 That the Divine Wifdom and Pooler is not fomething 
 different from God, but is God 9 and that 'Tis the common 
 Maxim of Divines; that the Attributes and Properties of 
 God, Are God. 
 
 CHR. Then it was God, who was not to fpeak of him- 
 felf ; but to receive of Mrift ; Qhrifl was to Di&at, and 
 God to Repeat ! 
 
 - 
 
 SOC.
 
 1 6 -The $%ohd V1AIOGVE. 
 
 . 6 V J. Pag. 101. it is fold, That He was net to fprik 
 cf : ,MiwJilfabut:,to Jpeak what tie ' cotf&ihe'dr from 'God. 
 
 CHR. -Then it was G^ who was to heir from God? 
 And God. was-mot to fpeak -tof-MftfiJe/fi -hut only what 
 God fliQu'd tell him / 
 
 SOC. AH this Non-fenfe cannot be Charg'd upon my 
 Author, becaufe he fuppofes this Spirit to be a Creature, 
 and not to be God. 
 
 ##. That is the frf Anfwer, which you have rejeft- 
 ed. And you have prov'd psg. 83. and elfewhere, That 
 the Spirit is not any thing -different from God, but is God. 
 And even: in this very fecond Anfwer which you mention, p. 
 loo. (that you may not be chars'd with forgetfulnefsj you 
 call this Spirit, by the name of the Hoi}- Spirit, or Power 
 of God. 
 
 SOC. We do To, and we keep conftant to this now, 
 tho' we part with all the ArtAtts, and very mAvy of the 
 Socinuns in fo doing. 
 
 CHR. Then the Nonfenfe which you faid juft now, 
 
 couM dot be chargM upon your Author, muft be laid to 
 
 his Account again, viz. To make the Spirit or Power of 
 
 .God, which is God, not to fpeak of Himfelj, but to re- 
 
 .ceive'froin God, and fpeak what God did diftat to God. 
 
 SOC. I muft take time to Confider of this. 
 
 CHR. But befides, I'm afraid the Conftancy which you 
 bragg you have to this Opinion now, viz. That the Spi- 
 rit is not Any thing different from God, but that it is God, 
 Does not hold very well with you, but that you are forc'd 
 to part with it fometimes, when it is for your Conve- 
 niency. 
 
 SOC. If you can fliew me any fuch thing, I will 
 ttuft no more to any thing our VmtArians fay. 
 
 CHR. Look into the Hiftory p. 125. and therein an- 
 fwer to that Crabbed Text, 2 Cor. 15, 14. he replys 
 in thefe words, Thi$ Text Demonflrtts, that neither the 
 
 Lord
 
 The fecond D / A L G V E. 17 
 
 -Lord Chrift, nor the Hclj Spirit are God, for it plainly 
 Diflinguifoes them jrom God. 
 
 Here the Hdy Spirit is plainly Diftingaiftfd from God^ 
 and is not God. And before, as you have laid, It is 
 not Any thing different from God, but it is God. 
 
 SOC. It is time to go to the fecond Anfwer which 
 the Hi ft. Vmta. gives to that Text John i. i. The Word 
 was God. For ther is enough faid as to the frfl Anfwer, 
 viz,. That by the Word, here is only meant God's Power 
 and Wiftom, which is not any thing different from God, 
 but is God. The fetond Anfwer, is, That the word 
 God is given fometimes to Creatures, to Angels^ and even 
 to Men. And therefor that Text may not mean that 
 the Word was the Supreme God, but only A God as 
 K^ngs are call'd Gods, &c. 
 
 CHR. To reduce the State of the Cafe as fhort and 
 clear as poflible, it is thus. The Diftin&ion is 'twixt 
 a God by Nature, and a God by Office, or Deputation. 
 By -Nature, we all agree, ther can be but one God . But 
 by 1 Office ther be Gods many, and Lords many, whether i.cor. 8. 
 >in Heaven or in Earth. * 
 
 Now in which of thefe Senfes the Word is call v d God 
 is the Queftion ? 
 
 SOC. That indeed is the Queftion, and if you can , 
 make it clear, this Caufe, for ought I can fee, will re- 
 main decided for ever. 
 
 CHR. If I can make appear what St. Johifs meaning 
 was, who wrote thefe words, I fuppofe that will fatisfy 
 you. 
 
 SOC. Yes fure, what he meant by it is the whole 
 matter. 
 
 CHR. I have told you before the Notions of the Jews <3 . 
 and Heathens as to the Trinity, That they did believe 
 three Htfoftafes or Perfons in the Divine Nature; an 
 confequently each of thefe Perfons muft be God by N 
 
 D ture.
 
 The fawJ P lALOGV E. 
 
 ture. The fecond of thefe Perfons they did call the 
 the Word 
 
 This is fo notorioufly known that I might fpare any 
 Proof of it, therefor I will give you but a few Autho- 
 rities that I might not feem to fpeak wholly Precari- 
 oufly. Plotinus, Ennead, 5^ 1. 5. c. $. fpeaking of the 
 Logos calls Him God fy Nature go's CCU'TU ^ <puci$ His 'very 
 NAture is God. And to fbew that :he meant not tfae 
 frft Ptrfofr of the Godhead, in the very next words, he 
 Calls Him A<xn*p@- -go? a. fecond God. By which, as I 
 told you before, they meant only the fecond Berfon in 
 the Divine. Nature, and fo have fully explain'd themfelves. 
 They- meant vthe fame thing awe do, but (as St. Auguft. 
 obfetves by way of an Excufe for them) not being ty'd 
 up to ftrio: forms of Words, as the Chrtftitxs have been, 
 cccafionM by the many Herefies have arifen, they took 
 their own Latitude of Expreffton, which yet made their 
 meaning plain enough ; as the &me.Ploti/tus does in another 
 place of the fame Book, E*neAd* 5. 1. i. c. 6. where he 
 affirms the Logos to be mxt to the woft High, of ne- 
 ceflity together with Him, and nothing between them, 
 and that He differs from Him, only in that He is *#- 
 other, or in His Perfonality. Thefe are his words, 
 
 *^ .*.\ fc r n ^e t rt ,y> 5* n<n t * c.*r r i i/-rr / A*. e.t-r-* G i ' * i^**.. - ^ - ^~L f 
 
 a : AA' OTI 
 
 , - , . , 
 
 1. 8. c. 5. he calls this Logos ifov- ">'& the Son of God* 
 Orpheus the Eldeft of all the <3redk Philofophers (as he 
 is cited Clem. Strom. L 5. p. ^254. Edit, flormt. Fol. an. 
 1550) calls the Logos., the Divine Word, and the Immor- 
 Ul Kjng t in thefe Verfes, 
 
 'E<$ 
 
 j ywn 
 
 Porphyr;
 
 The feconct DIALOGUE. 
 
 - -, (Quoted by St. Cyril Con*. Jut. 1. i. p. 32. Edit. 
 Paris, fol. An. 1658.) calls the Logos '"Aj^r* "^SoW *) 
 l&i'ot ajflL'n-. without time, always, and alone Eternal, 
 Tertulli&n (Apolog. adv. Gentes. c. 21.) fays, that %eno 
 calFd this Logos, the Maker of the World, who formed 
 all things in order, and that He was call'd Fate, and 
 Cod, and the Soul of 'Jupiter, and the Neceffity of all things. 
 Httc ewim Z^enon determinat Fattitatorem, c^ui Cunffa in 
 J&ifp&fitione formaverit, eundem & Fatum vocari, & Deum, 
 & Animum Jovif, & mceffttat-ew omnium rertim. 
 
 And as the Heathen, fo the Jews underftood the Logos 4. 
 in the fame fenfe, Philo (Qv*ft> dr Solut.) calls the Logos The 
 
 r\rf ^*_ f - . . Notion 
 
 in the fame words of Plotin. above quoted 
 eov- a fecund -God, next to the n*n'ept ^f vreivmov to the 
 Father of all, and in his Hfg-w Allegor. 1. 2. p. 95. Edit. 
 Paris, fol. An. 1640. he fpeaks, thus of the Logos, Kaj o 
 
 g. That the Word of God 
 is fuperior to the whole World, and Elder and more 
 General than all the things whatfoever which are pro- 
 duc'd., ^pf vwtff he adds (de Proftig.) Elder then all /*- 
 ulligibles, than all things in the Intetteftual World, as 
 well as in the Sexfitive, than all Spirits, as well as Bodies, 
 that is, than all Created Beings. 
 
 And to (hew that he meant this of another Per fin 
 than of God the Father, he calls this Logos the J/^- 
 Pr/f/2 of G<wf, that is, Governing next under Him, or ha- 
 ving the Adminiftration of God's Kingdom in all the 
 World, which he calls the -Temple- 'of God, 'EV $ *) 'A%e?djs 
 o npwitT'Oj'' wsrv - AO'T/^. /'' rrj^/ci, His (God's) 
 frjt'horn Divine Word, is High-Prieft. de J own. agreeable 
 to this, the Cha/dee Paraphrafe makes the Logos and God 
 or Jehova Synoniraous, and inftead of Jehova often ufes 
 the Logos wWord of God, as Exodi'to. i. Deut+ 35.7. 
 
 D 2 But
 
 The jeoonct V IALO GV E. 
 
 But does plainly diftinguilh them from being the fame* 
 Per/0#, as Gen. 17. 7. I will eftabliflj my Covenant between*, 
 my Word, and Thee.. Where God fpeaks of His Word^ as 
 of another Perfon. 
 
 The Jerufalem Targum is yet more Exprefs, upon* 
 Gen. $, 22. thus, 
 
 The word of the Lord faid, behold Adam, whom 1 Crea- 
 ted, is the onlj begotten upon Earth, as I am the only be- 
 gotten in Heaven. And Philo (de Agricult. 1. 2.) introduces 
 'the Logos fpeaking thus of Himfelf, Kct} $ fa o$uVrv 
 us Qfos V, fa $>7}iw us J^fls. / am neither 1)n-begotten- 
 AS God, nor Begotten, after the manner that you are. 
 
 Here the Begotten Word is diftinguifhed from the V-> 
 Btgotten Father of the Word, and the Creation of Adam* 
 is attributed, in exprefs Terms, to the Words, and the 
 Text fays he was Created by God, which makes God. 
 and the Word to be Synonimous, and Onkelos Paraphrafe 
 of Gen. 28 21, thus renders it, If the Word of the Lord 
 will help me the Word of the Lord foall be my God. 
 
 Let me add to this, at leaft to fhew the Jewi/b Notion* 
 in this matter, the Stile in which the Apocryph* ExprefTes 
 Lt. Thus we find it. 
 
 SOC. But my Bufmefs now, is not what the jfetvs or 
 Heathens meant by their Logos or Word of God, but what 
 St. John meant by the Logos he mentions in that Text 
 you have quoted; 
 
 CHR. Where do you Imagin that St. John got this 
 Term of Logos-, or the Word of God ? 
 
 SOC. I have often Reflected upon that, and really it 
 appearM very ft range to me, the beginning of his Gofpel 
 feem'd to me to be out of all the Common Road of fpeak- 
 ing ; And therefore I put it upon the Account of fome 
 Extraordinary Impulfe of the Spirit of God ; and that he> 
 fpoke Words, which never Man had fppken before. And 
 therefore I thought you to blame to draw Arguments 
 
 from
 
 The feconct DIALOGV E. 21 
 
 from fuch uncouth Phrafes, vvhofe meaning feem'd as hid* 
 den as the Revelations. 
 
 CHR. But I hope you are of another Opinion now, and 
 believe that thofe Ttrms were not of St John's Inventing, 
 but were us'd before, he was Born, and were known 
 Common Terms in the World. 
 
 SO.C. I muft not deny plain matter of Fact. 
 
 CHR. Why then ihou'd St. John ufe common Terms 
 in a different Senfk from the whole World ? 
 
 SOC. I can give no Reafon why he fhouM. 
 
 CHR. He muft not intend to be underftood if he did, 
 and fo cou'd not be a fmcere Writer. He muft intend 
 either to Confirm the World in the Opinion they had ' 
 of the Logos, or to difpcove it ; now you find plainly that 1 
 he did not Abfolutly deny or Rejeft the Logos. But he 
 Reforms fome Errors -concerning if, and teaches the 
 Truth of it. For, as w*s faid before, The Heathen Phi- 
 lofopher s had Corrupted the Tradition of the Trinity which 
 had come to them ; and confequently of the Logos, which 
 was one of the, three firft Principles, whom they acknow- 
 
 SOC. What Corruption did St. Job* intend to correft 
 in his Treatife of the Logos? 
 
 CHR. The Cerithian Hereticks denyed the Logos to 
 be.~/' ..the Beginning: But made many Ages diftance be- 
 tween .the Eternal Being of the Father, and the Emana- 
 tion of the Logos, wherein they fancy 'd the Father, in. 
 Jilentio et Quiet e multa fuiffe- in Itnmenfit ALonibus, as 
 Irentus exprefTes it. adver]'. Heref.l. i. c. i. to have been 
 in Silence and deep Quiet for immenfe Ages. And they 
 fuppos'd that the Logos was at laft produc'd by the Fa- 
 ther am o-iyiis out of this Silence ; which they made one 
 of His Emanations^ As I have faid before : And I defire . 
 to Repeat to you again, that you may Remember it, 
 what I before Quoted out of St. Ignatius his />//.; to 
 the Magnefans, where he calls Chrift the Ao}. am
 
 The feconcl DIALOGUE. 
 The Eternal Word who did not proceed 
 Sileace. 
 
 And you wifi believe Ignatius to be the bed Inter- 
 preter of St. John's meaning, who was his own Scholar, 
 and Learn'd the Cofpd from his Mouth. /rew<e#^adverf. 
 Haer. 1. ii. p. 257. fays exprefly that St. John wrote on 
 purpofe againft "-entbtts^ to vindicat the Logos-, being 
 Prior and Superior to all fancy'd Menes OK- Emulations.; 
 and to that very End, wrote the words of this Text, 
 John i. i. In tin Beginning was the Word, &c. 
 
 I have here given you trv& of the Ancient -Fathers^ 
 long before the Council of Nice, for Our Expofition of 
 tiisi 2{e*c, in Direcl: Oppofition to yews ; And Averting 
 the fame Dofoin concerning God and His Word which 
 We Believe and Teach at this Day. But I can give 
 you more. And firft More of St. Ignatius, who fays of 
 
 ft) ./'* tht Fleflf afar tits Refurretfion. Epift. 
 ^.. st^jxs. Edit. Vffer. p. 112. 
 
 !&ttiJg0**M* (EpP * fy'*f T- ?? f Etit.Vffer) 
 Speaks of Chrift in thefe words "E^^gy ictT&r,$%wj- 
 
 &.Qt'VfJ&V SOP l*ffW ^ Xf/5T?j' T TT^p iUUVW if 09 Moj/qj^^7 J^ Aoj/0^ 
 
 i t^^e y^ M t j **\ 4. m *tH/^^.* /^TT. i ^ */ A ? >j s\ t *~t t rv* th^< /^Nc TIJ r\ % M /AO ^ ^ -- . r^ 
 
 o ciowfj.atl@* cv GvtJictfn, a oLim^rf, <yr Trct^rrft 1 (rwaaTT, o e 
 
 T <rft>n*<?f7i, ^ <^&n -cv (prS^a, i. e. W'V ^4-r/f likervife a, 
 y Oar Lord God Jfftts$ ike Cbris'i, who was before 
 the cnfy begottev Son anA Word but afterward made 
 Job. i. i. M*H of vth&Virgin May, for -the WvrA, was wade flejb-ln- 
 in ^ody, -Im^i^ble m a, Pa/fivle Bodj, lvimort.il in 
 Body> 'Lift fo Corruption &t. 
 <MAgnes.^ ^6i of Edit Vfffr. Ignatius fpeaks 
 yet more Categorically in this point ; he fays of Ghrift 
 5? '$it <Lm? Ao>^, p>)T@,, - d??C VG-IP$VS. i. e. [Chrisf\ who 
 is His [Cafe] Wor^, not of His Speech, but His Sub- 
 Aince. 
 
 . 
 
 5' 
 
 And
 
 Thefecond DIALOGUE. 
 
 And />. ad Pofycarp. p. i fa of Edit. Vffer. he fay$ 9/ 
 Chdft T ccW6>i ws gov., J" uj^$ ^ Trct,Smov &k jf^^M^Vjh .4%'fe 
 ff^o iiw Impa/fible as God, btttfor as was Pajfible as Ma 
 He calls Him there ' A%&vov .&> %gpv<u,<x,op,ii>v ry P u 2lhp#~ 
 ToV of <TKp &C. i. e. Without Time in Time, Invisible jn his 
 Nature, vitible in the Flefh. And more to the fame' 
 
 nrnnfe <* * v * UVV.\'r,U ^ ^ ^vUwp-uW^ 
 
 purpoie. , , . . v . ,^^ vik 
 
 . Qkmen. Alexwdirin. Aamonit. ad Gent; p. 5. fas' /bat tfie 
 Word.** ChriH, C O pgv* *J*W ^ 0/s Tg $ *^'W.'W j -p^ ^^ 
 WAS both God- and M*n. And in his Ptdagogus J. i.e. 8. 
 p. 115. : He fays, that God hates Nothing,, neither The 
 Word: for both, fays he, are One, that is God: for he 
 faid, In ' the ~BePMmn? VMS. the word, and the word, yas' 
 
 i *~i i j.i j r* i 
 
 mth God, And the word, was God. 
 
 JttH. Munyr. Did cum Tryfh . p. 284. 285. fays 
 that God, before all Creatures, begot out'-of Himfelf 
 AuVajuuv Koynwv & Rttional Pomr^ which is call'd by the 
 Holy Gholi, The Glory of the Lord, and alfo the Sofy : 
 and fometimes WifAom^ ^as by Solomon in the Proverbs 
 &c.) and fometimes Gad y and Sometimes Lord and that 
 it was He who appeared in the form of a Man to 
 Jojbua, as Captain of the Hoft of the Lord : and that 
 thefe Appellations belong to Him as being begotten by 
 the. Voluntary Generation of the Father And that the 
 like Generation may he feen in fome fort in our felves, 
 for when we bring forth a Word, we do in a manner 
 Beget that Word; not by Cutting or Parting it, 
 as if it were made lefs in us who beget it ; but 
 as in Fire, another is kindled by if, without any Di- 
 minution of that Fire whence the other is Kindled. And 
 that this Word or Progenie of God was with God, before 
 all Creatures, fcnd that all things were made by Him, and 
 nothing made without Him y and that it was to Him God 
 fpake, Let us make Ma^ as you have heard. 
 
 Irenes is full and large upon this Text, adverf. Heres. 
 1. 5. c. ii. 1. 5. c, 1 8. 1. i. c. 19. 1. 2. c, 2. 1. j. c. 8, 
 ii i. TertulL
 
 24 ''The fecontt DIALOGUE. 
 
 Terttttt. Jfologet. c. 2. i. {hows what Opinion 'the 
 
 '"Heathen Philofophers had of the Logos, whom they own'd 
 
 as the Maker of the World, and caiPd Him, Ftte, and 
 
 God, and the^ Soul of Jupiter. Him (fays TertuRiM) 
 
 ex Deo proUfum dicimus, & proUtione generatum, et id- 
 
 circo f ilium Dei, & Deum dictum ex Unit Ate Subjlanti* 
 
 Dtr Spiritu Spiritus, & de Deo Deus, ut Lumen de Lumme 
 Accenfum. We faj thtf the LOGOS is deduct from God, 
 und in that Deduction is Begot, and therefor is CA/l'd the 
 SON of God, and God from the VNITT OF SVB- 
 
 STJNCE that He is Spirit of Spirit, and God of 
 
 God, AS Light is Kjndled of Li^ht. And (De Praefcrip. 
 1. 15) This Word, or Son of God, appeared varioufly 
 to the Patriarchs in the Name of God, was always 
 heard in the Prophets, and at laft by the Spirit, was made 
 Flefh in the Womb of the' Virgin Mary, &c. But TertuHUn 
 is fo full and in fo many places, that I fuppofe our Adver- 
 faries will not contend for him. Read his jth Setf. ad- 
 verf. Prax. p. 503. and 504. and fee how exprefly heDi- 
 fputes againft our Authors Notion of the Word, being 
 nothing different from God, as we fay of the Word which 
 a Man fpeaks, it is not a Diftincl Subftance from him. 
 
 quid eft enim dices for you will fay, what <is a 
 
 Word but the Voice or Sound of the Mouth a fort 
 
 of an Incorporeal empty thing ? But I fay that nothing 
 
 Void or Etfcpty could proceed from God nor could 
 
 want that Subftance which comes forth fbom.fo great a 
 
 Subftance, and which made fo Great Subftances -How 
 
 can he be Nothing, without whom Nothing was made ? 
 
 Can that Word of God be a Void and Empty thing, 
 
 who is called the Son, who is nam'd God Himfelf ; arid 
 the Word .WAS with God, And the Word was God ? This 
 certainly is He, who being in the Form of Got},. thought it 
 not Rowery to be Equal with God- - Therefore- whatever 
 the Subftance of the Word is, Pfr/ww/* iD/V0, Lcall it
 
 Thefeconrf DIALOGUE. 25 
 
 a Ptrfon, and Vendicat to it the Name of the Son, Thus 
 TertulliAn. 
 
 Origen upon this Text p. 17. means by the- Word 4 r * p;t 7, 
 fbmething diftincl: from God. In the beginning was the *<*%<>*. *'y<> 
 Word, by The Word here, he Vnderftands the Son, who 
 fad to be in the Beginning, becaufe He was in the Father. \ v rJ 
 
 You would not make God to be in and with Himfelf, ^y' , ~ 
 to Beget Himfelf, to be His own Son, &c. and without" 
 faying this, you cannot reconcile the Senfe of thefe Fa- 
 thers upon this Text, to that Senfe your Hiftorian puts 
 upon it. viz. That the Word in this Text, is not fome- 
 thing different from God. 
 
 SOC. Our Brief Hiftory fays p. 80. The Trinitarian 
 Expofition of this Chapter is Abfurd and Contradictory. 
 
 CHR. This is his Civil way of Treating Us ! 
 iThefe are the Patterns for Gentile Difputing, without 
 IPafflon or Heat\ Bat -what Reafon do's he give for 
 this Hard Cevfare. 
 
 SOC. He < feys, ? Tis this, that In the Beginning fhou'd 
 -be Meant from all Eternity. For, fays he, From ail Eter* 
 mty y is before the Beginning. 
 
 CHR. What! Before the Beginning of Eternity* 
 SOC' 'Eternity has no Beginning. 
 CHR. Then ther is no fuch thing as from Eternity. 
 The word From Implies a Beginning. Do's any body 
 iky From no Beginning? Or can any body Think it? 
 
 <SOC. We cannot fpeak Properly of Eternity. We can- 
 not fpe&k of it but by words of Time. For we have 
 None other. 
 
 CHR. Then take your own Jnfver. And what 
 word of Time is Before the Beginning ? But all Phrafes 
 of Speech muft be taken in the Common Accept Atiort. 
 And I have Shew'd you from your Beloved tirotitts, 
 that 2n the Beginning Was a Common Hebrtifm for Eter- 
 nity. And that it was fo Us'd in this Text. Dp we 
 not fay, that Gad was in the Beginning before all things ? 
 
 E And
 
 26 The feconcf DIALOGV E. 
 
 And Ori^tn has juft now told you the Meaning of the 
 Word being faid to be in the Beginning, that is, That 
 the Word was always in God, and therefore muft be in 
 the Beginning with God. And I have fhew'd you that 
 the Cerinthians Deny'd the Word to have been in the 
 Beginning with God, but Produc'd many Ages, or ALottes 
 after. Therefore the Afoftle Aflerts that He was in the 
 Beginning winh God. And St. Ignatius Calls Him &6y(& 
 "AtS'i* the Eternal Word. And from the Beginning is a 
 Scripture Phrafe whereby to Exprefs Eternity, zs the 
 fame Logos or Word fpeaks of Hiwfe/fby the Name of 
 Wifdom (whereby he is Commonly Exprefs'd in Holp 
 Scripture) Prov. 8. 23. / was fet up from Ever UftinS, from 
 the Beginning, or ever the Earth was. God the Father 
 wou'd not fay, That he VMS fet up. Did any other Set 
 Him up ? Yet he that was Jet up is faid to be from - 
 verlajling. And from the Beginning is made Sjnonymus 
 with from Ever lofting. 
 
 SOC. But my Hijlorian fays p, 8. That IN THE 
 BEGINNING muft Refer to fome Time and Thing, it 
 muH be in the Beginning of the World, or of the Gofpel, 
 or of the Word. He fays, /'* muft be fa But gives no 
 other Proof. Therefor I go on to the Next. 
 
 CHR. To which of thefe Times do's the Beginning 
 of Wisdom Refer ? And the Wifdom of God is Call'd His 
 Word: As your Hijlorian Confefles p. 82. Was not Wif- 
 dom then in the Beginning with God ? Or was ther any 
 Time when God had not Wifdom ? Now go on to your 
 Next. 
 
 SOC. He fays, p. 81. The word was with God. That is, 
 fays he, The Son was with the father. But was not the 
 Son aljo with the Holy Gboft ? And is not he too (accor- 
 ding to the TrinitariansJ God, or a God? If he is 9 why doth 
 St. John fay, the Son was with the Father : And bow c ernes 
 the Father to Engrofs here the Title of God, to the Exclu- 
 ftott of the Holy Ghott ? Then he goes on and fays in 
 
 the
 
 tte Second DIALOGUE. 17 
 
 the Next words, The Word was God. Upon which he 
 Argues in the fame way, and fays, What {baS m do 
 here ? WAS the Word the Father ? For fo they Interpreted 
 GOD in the foregoing Claufe. 
 
 CHR. That the word God Includes the Father is True. 
 But who told him it was to the Exclufion of the Holy 
 Ghoftt Your Hiftorian knows well enough that is not 
 the Doftrin of the Trinitarians. Why then did he Ob- 
 jed it ? I have told you before, That the word God 
 do's Generally Mean the Godhead, which Includes all 
 the Three Perfons. And fometimes it means the Father, 
 as the Fountain of the other Perfons. And that fome- 
 times the Godhead is Exprefs'd without the word God 
 at all, inhere the three Perfons are Enumerated, as in 
 the Form of our 'Btptifm. 
 
 I Illuftrated this to you, by way of Parallel, that the 
 
 llnderfanding) being the Father or Fountain Faculty, is 
 
 often us'd to Exprefs the Soul: But that this was not 
 
 to the Exclusion of the other two Faculties. It is laid 
 
 Lttk. 24. 45. That CHRIST Opened their Vnder flan ding, 
 
 : ihat they might Under/land the Scriptures, Your Hiftcrian 
 
 'might come inhere as well, and fay, what (hall we do now? . 
 
 Was this to the ExcluRon of the Memory* and of the 
 
 Will 
 
 It is not faid in the Text we are upon, That the Word 
 was the Father, but that the Word was God. That is, 
 did Partake of the Divine Nature ; which is not to the 
 Exclusion of Either of the other Perfons. But it do's De- 
 monftrate the Word was One of thefe Perfons, as Par- 
 taking of the fame Nature with them. Let us hear if 
 your Hijlorian has any more to fay. 
 
 SOC. Upon thefe words, The fame was in the Beginning 
 with God, he fays, p. 82. How comes this to be again Re- 
 peated? for John had faid once before, that the Word was 
 with God. They care not, 'tis faid, and that's enough. 
 
 E 2 CHR.
 
 28 He feconct DIALOGUE. 
 
 CHR. He gives a Pretty account of our Anfwen\ Do?s 
 he Name any Trinitarian that gave that Blunt Anfwer ? 
 
 SOC. No. But he go's on and fays, The Truth is, ac- 
 cording to their Senfe of this Context, no Actouut CM be 
 given of this Reaction, and they muft Allow it tv be A Meer 
 Tautology. 
 
 CHR. What is the Secinian Senfe he puts upon it ? 
 
 SOC. He fays, That in the Beginning (that is, the Br-* 
 ginning of the Creation of Heaven and Earth) was the 
 Word. And that by the Word the Power and Wifdom 
 of God is meant. 
 
 CHR. Well. But how do's this folve the Tautology? 
 For St. John had faid once before, that the Word was 
 with God.* And whatever is Meant by the Word, the 
 Tautology is the fame. Thus then the Text go's, 
 in his Senfe, in the Beginning, that is, of the Creation, 
 was the Word, that is, the Power and Wifdom of God. 
 And the Power and Wifdom was with God: And 
 the Power and Wifdom was God. And the fame Power 
 and Wifdom was / ffo Beginning with G0/ Let him 
 now folve the Tautology he Objects, even in his own 
 Senfe. Men are very willing to make Objections, when 
 they cannot fee how eafily they are Retorted ! 
 
 But this will bring us to a better Undemanding of 
 this Text. For in the Socinian Senle, it is not only a 
 Tautology, but the whole is to no Purfofe. For who 
 Deny'd that God had Power and Wifdom, from the..Jfc- 
 ginning y not only of the Creation, but from all Eternity* 
 Againft whom did St; John Difpute, in this Senfe ? But 
 I have flbew'd you againft whom he did Difpute, that 
 is, the Cerinthians, who Deny'd this Wifdom of God, 
 call'd the Word, to be a P<?r/0 ; or if a Porfon, not to 
 have been from the Beginning, but Created by G<?^ many 
 ^gw or jones afterwards^ and fo not to have been in 
 the Beginning with God. Againft thefe the dpoftle's words 
 are Full and Cogent. But in the Socinian Senfe, they 
 
 are
 
 Tfo feccnct DIALOGV E.. 19 
 
 are nothing but what all the World Kjien and Aliow'd, 
 and fo were meant againft no Body, to Prove nothing, 
 or to Dif-prove nothing. 
 
 Thefe Hertticks made Two WORDS, of GOD, Orte 
 by Nature, which is the EfTential Wifdom Inherent in Oftbeirr4 
 God by His Nature, and this muft have been Always in b v *&* rff 
 God, and ever 1* far abb from Him. This muft have^ by ( 
 been in the Beginning with God, and muft be God. 
 And by this God made all things, and without this was 
 not any thing Made, that was Made. But they Deny'd 
 Cbrift to be this WORD. They faid He was Metapho- 
 rically call'd the Word and the Wifdom of G0^, from 1 the 
 Great Wifdom Beftow'd upon Him. And that He was 
 Created by the True and Natural IVOR D of God. Thus 
 the Arians (after the Cerinthitns)* held as you may fee 
 in the Synodisal Epifle of Alexander Bifhop of Alexandria^ 
 upon the Condemnation of Arius. Socrat. Hi ft. 1. i. c. 5. 
 Now fee how D;>*# and Pungent the words of St. 
 jfi0# are againft thefe Hereftes* where he fets about to 
 Prove that Chrtft was the Word of God.- Not a Made 
 or Created WORD, which was not from the Beginning, 
 but the very Word, which was in the Beginning, and 
 which was God; by whom God made all things, and 
 without whom Nothing was Made, that was Made, that is, 
 He was the Effential Wifdom of God, and therefore Al- 
 ways in God. Which is the Reafon Origin gives, as- 1 
 have before Quoted him, why Chrtft is faid to be in the 
 ^Beginning, becaufe He was always in the Father. And it 
 was this fame Word, St- John tells us, that was made 
 
 SOC t But you have forgot to folve the Tautology Ob- 
 jeQed by our Hiftorian. You have indeed Retorted it 
 upon him- But you have not Anfrver^d it as toyourfelf. 
 
 CHR. Every Repetition is not a Tautology ; But to En- 
 force what you fay the More. And your Htflorian is fen- 
 fible of this, for he fays, p. 87. upon the nth- -wrf. of 
 
 this
 
 3 o The fecond DIAL G TJ E. 
 
 this Chapter, His own Received Him not, 'TV/ again Re- 
 peated (fays your Hiftorian) to Brand the Ingratitude and 
 Stupidity of the Jews. And, p. -91. upon Job. 3. ij, he 
 fays, It is Repeated, Majoris Affeverationis caufa, for its 
 greater Confirmation. Thus the fame Apoflle having Af- 
 ferted the Word to have been in the Beginning. And to 
 have been with God, now Joins both together, and fays, 
 He was in the Beginning with God. To {hew what Be- 
 ginning he meant, viz- The fame Beginning with God, 
 fince we muft fo fpeak. And it was likewife for the 
 ftronger Confirmation of this moft Important Truth. 
 
 But fays your Author to the next words that follow 
 ver. 3. All things were made by Him: And without Him 
 was not any thing Made*, that was Made. 
 
 SOC. He fays, p. 84. That the WORD begins here to 
 be fpokeft^of as a PERSON, by the fame figure of fpeech 
 that Solomon faith, WISDOM hath BuilM her Houfe, &c. 
 This is the fame as I told you before, That by thsWord 
 he -means the Sternal Power and Wifdom of God. 
 
 CHR. What do's he fay to the next words Imrne- 
 diatly following, In Him was Life, &c. 
 
 SOC, He fays p. 85. In him. i. e. In him when he was 
 in the World, and was made Fle[h. 
 
 CHR. But had the Eternal Power and Wifdont of God 
 no Life, till Jefus was Born? Indeed a Quality or Attri- 
 bute has no Life in it Therefor if the Word have Life, 
 - it mutt be a -Per/on- For which Reafon, you will not 
 let it be a Per fox, till it Iafpir'4-OT Dwelt in jfefxs- But 
 all that will not make it a Per fon, more than it was a 
 f erf on in all the Holy Men it has Infpir^d. Nothing lefs 
 than 1 In-carnation can do that, whereby the Natures united 
 become one Perfon, and cannot be Separated again, with- 
 out the Death of the Per/on. 
 
 But fee how you are Caught in your own Snare. In 
 
 Anfwer to ver. '} you make the Word the Eternal Power 
 
 .>and Wifdom of God 9 and to be God. But in Anfrver to 
 
 ver.
 
 The feconct D I A L G V E. 31 
 
 4. you make the fame Word to be a Creature, and 
 to have had no Life, till the Birth of Jefus. Nay you 
 make ft no more than the Doflrin of Chrift, which here 
 (fays your Author) is called Light, as before it was calPd 
 Life, So that here was no Life, but in a Metaphorical 
 Senfe, as contributing to give Life to others, which a Dead 
 thing may do, as the Book of the Scriptures when Read. 
 
 But how do's the Word or Wifdom of God INSPIRE, 
 if it have no Life in it? Or do's it borrow Life from 
 the P erf on whom it Infpirest As your Author feems to 
 fay, That the Word had no Life, till it was made Fte/b. 
 For then he fuppofes, and confequently not till then? that 
 Text verify 'd, In Him was Life. But if Life was in Him 
 before, then he was a Perfon before, and confequently 
 from all Eternity, He being the Eternal Wifdom of God, 
 as your Author has AfTerted. And He having Life in 
 Himfelfy might give Life 9 to Another, or lafpire Another. 
 For a Quality do's not Infpire, but is that which is In- 
 fpired. But your Author fays, that Hi? the Word was ;<nfr 
 J7i/&. This is fomething more than Infpiriag. 
 
 SOC. We can ufe the Term of being made Fle(b, and 7 . 
 of In-carnation too, and yet mean no wore by it than what the 
 bare Infpiration. Thus our Hif&rian, p. 86- fays, J^S^ty /- 
 WORD became ln-carnat, that is, Abode on the Perfon ofeimation. 
 Jejus Chnft. For God communicated to him An Effufion of 
 his Power and Wifdom. And p. 87. in Anfwer to ver. 
 14. The Word was made Flf/b, that is, fays my Author, 
 did abide on and inhabit an Human Perfon, the Perfon of 
 Jefus Chrift, and fo was, in Appearance, made Flejh or Man. 
 
 CHR. The Text fays, was made Flefi. That was only 
 in" Appearance, fay you. This is a pretty Latitude in In- 
 terpreting of Texts \ And looks like a downright 
 Denytl of the Text. For if it was only in Appearance, 
 then it was not m*de Flefh- This is Adding to the Texf, 
 not Interpreting. And let me have the like 'Privilege of 
 Adding only thefe two Words, in Appearance, to what 
 
 Text
 
 3-2 The feconcf D I A L G V E. 
 
 Text I think fit, I* wou'd fain know if you cou'd Prove 
 any one thing upon me out of the whole Bible! 
 
 But where was the Appearance? If God Endows a 
 Mart with Extraordinary Gifts and Graces, and Pover 
 of Working Miracles, is this any jfppetrance of God's 
 being Made Flefbt Then ther was an Appearance of it 
 in MofeS) and many of the Prophets, ind Apoflles.- Chrift 
 faid to them Joh. 14. 12. Verily Verily I Jay unto you, 
 He tin At believeth in Me, the works that I do,, (ball he do 
 alfo, And Greater works than thefeJhaU he do, becaufe 1 go 
 unto the Father. Was God therefor In-Carnat, or will 
 He be In-C 'artut in any who have, or may hereafter 
 do thefe Greater Works ? Or will ther be any Appearance 
 of His being Made Flefb, in any of thefe His Saints? 
 Where then was the Appearance of God ) s being made 
 Tlefb in Chri& 9 becaufe of the Mighty Works which He 
 did ? For that was all which cou'd Appear to our Vitrv. 
 XIV> SOC. We have "dwelt < a long time upon this frfl of 
 TheitherSt. John. As if it were the Onely Text in all the Bi- 
 ' Me you had to Depend upon, 
 
 e. CHR. You lhall fee the whole Current of the Holy 
 Scriptures 'Run all in the fame Strain. But ther being 
 feveral' things "Needful to be Known, in Order to the 
 Explaining of feveral Texts. I have Chofe to fet them 
 "down in this Place, to Avoid Repitition. Therefor it will 
 Shorten our Work in what Remains, And now I am 
 Ready to Look over with you the Anfaers which your 
 Hiftorian gives to the Texts of Scripture in the Order 
 he has Rang'd them. 
 
 SOC. He begins upon this in hls^Second Letter, p. 42. 
 And the firft Text he Names is Gen. i. 26. Let us 
 Make Man in our Image. Whence you draw Arguments 
 from the Manner of the Phrafe of God i)eing fpoken of 
 in the Plural Number. 
 
 (i) CHR. He fhou'd have begun at the/r/2 Vers. 
 In the beginning God Crated the Hea&en and tfo Earth. 
 
 Where
 
 He fetond DIALOGV E. 
 Where the word Elohim, which we Tranflate G<?^, is 
 in the P/urai Number, and Bart did Create is in the 
 Singular Number, which Litter Ally Render'd is thus, Dti 
 Creavit, that is, He, the Gods, did Create. And ther 
 are three Perfons here vifibly fpoke of, Firft he that 
 fpoke. Let ther be Light, Let there be A Firmament. 8cc 
 Second, The Word fpoken by Him. Of which we have 
 Difcours'd largely before. Third', The Spirit of God, 
 which (Ver. 2.) is faid to have 'Moved upon the face of 
 the Waters. And thefe Gods, are here laid to be the 
 God that did Create. And we know how Exact the 
 Hebrew is as to Every Letter of a Word, and the Import 
 they draw from thence. As in that little Alteration 
 which God Made in the Names of Abr&mwA Sarai, 
 into Abraham ^X^L Strah. Gen. 17. 5. i$. Upon which 
 God there laid Great 'Strefs, and gave it as a Token of 
 His C0ff*4/tf-then Made with them. I will not trouble 
 you with the Niceties and Improvements which the Ca- 
 l>alifts> or MyJIieal Writers of the Jews, make upon Eve- 
 ry WorA and Letter, and Manner of Expreffion in the 
 Sacred Text. Tho' it fhews their Meaning, and how 
 they Underftood things. But finceyour Author has Slip 
 this Text, let us go on with him to that which you 
 have NanaM. 
 
 (2.) To that Text Gett. j. 26. Let us make Man itt 
 our Image, he fays, p. 42. That the Vs there fpoke of 
 was God and Angels. That God fpoke this to the An- 
 gels. That Ma was Made in the Image of God and 
 Angels. But that God Spoke to the Anoels, not as Ad- 
 jutants, but as Spectators of his work. ~ He fays, fome 
 Rabfoes do thus Underftand it. He fays he has fpoke 
 to this Text in his frfl Letter. 
 
 CHR. I can find nothing of it there. So this was 
 a Put off. But here he takes Part with the Jews a- 
 gainft Us. The Jms fmce Christ, have Obfcar'd 
 what they can the Dotfri* of the Trinity, becaufe it 
 
 F Leads
 
 34 TRefertncf DIALOGUE. 
 
 Leads fo Direftly td the Divinity of Chrifl. But they 
 have not been Able to do it fo ? as not to leave full 
 Proof of it out of their Writings, as I have fhewM you. 
 And much more might be Produced to the fame Purpoie. 
 
 However in Anfwer to the Socinians, and thefe fome 
 Rabbies (your Author do's not Name nor Quote,) I fay, 
 That this Anfoer is whoDy Precarious. And they Pro- 
 duce No Authority whatever for it. Betides, it is not 
 Certain that the Angels were then Created. St. Barnabas 
 thinks that this Text was fpoke before the foundation- 
 of the World. Which I will fhew you Prefently. Be- 
 fides that the Expreffion Let Vs make, is not Applicable 
 to bare Spectators, but to Fellow-workers. Come fee me 
 Work t wou'd be an Invitation to spectators. As *Jehu 
 faidto ^fehvnadab. 2. Kjn. 10. 16. Come with me, and SEE 
 my Zjal for the Lord. 
 
 SOC. My Author Quotes Job. 38. 4, 7. to Prove that the 
 Angels were then Created. The 4th verfe is, where waft 
 thou when J laid the Foundation of the Earth? Declare if 
 tbou baft Under Banding. But I fee no Proof in this. There- 
 fore it muftbe ver. 7. which is, Ihe Morning Stars fang 
 together, and aft the Sons ofGod/boutedforJoj. By thefe Sons 
 of God, I fuppofe he means the Angels. And becaufe they 
 Shouted. 
 
 CHR. That is a ftrange Proof, out of the fame Verfe 
 where Stars are faid to Sing! This is fuch an ExprefFion 
 as Pfal. 98. 8. Let the Floods clap their hands , let the Hills be 
 Joyful, &c. And Pfal. 65. i $. TheVafliesare covered with Corn, 
 they Shout for Joy, they alfo Sing. And by the like Figure, 
 et< 09 ^ a ^ tlie Hft of H*** might be call'd thtSons of God. 
 ^. But to leave thefe Forced and Foraign Proofs. I will now, 
 i- according to my Promife, give youfomeof the Ante- Nicene 
 " Fathers Interpretation of this Text. 
 
 St. Barnabas in his Catholuk Epi(lle y c. 5. p. si. fpeak- 
 \ ing of the Lord Chrifl, fays, To whom God jpoke in the 
 r . Day before the Foundation of the World, Let us make Man 
 in our Image, after our Likenefs. And
 
 
 The feccnd DIALOGUE. 35 
 
 ,4,/And again, c. 6. p* Ji. For the Seripti/re faith of us,&* *&y*yk 
 He (the Father )/*/<* to the Son, Let m make Mm ^JJKJS 
 ter our Image. y it TI/ 
 
 Jaftin Martyr in his D/W. with Trypbo. p. 265. calls it """f^ 
 aHnrtfi to fay that this wasfpokento the Angels, orthat^y^/2 
 the Body of Man was the workmanfhip of Angels. ButwwT'* A > 
 he fays the Father here fpeaks to His Son, who came * 
 from the Father before all Creatures. He confutes thofe 
 Rabbis who, depraving the Scripture, fays he, pretend 
 that God fpoke to Himfelf when He faid Let us make 
 Ma, or to the Elements, or the Earth, or any the likej 
 He fays that expreffion (hews ther was a number at leaft, 
 two that were together, and thofe he makes to be the 
 Father, and the Son : And that without all doubt, fays 
 he, the Father there fpeaks to one numerically Different* 
 from Himfelf, and to an Intelligent Perfon. 
 
 \ .; v\ 
 Ireft&US fays, God fpoke thefe Hmo fecundum fimilitudinem Dei for- 
 
 WOrds tO the- -Son and the Hoi) hoc 'elf, per ^lium*^ Spfrltum, Ouibus ec 
 Gh&ft, and he Calls them Metaph- dixie, Faciamus h'ominem. Iren. adv^rf. 
 
 orically, the K^^ of G^ by H f, ef - p . r f ar - in " b vf- ' . , 
 
 , . \*\ j a/f j L ^ em 'P le ( 1 UI ab mitio plafmavit Adam, 
 
 WlllCri fie made Man. And he cumquoetloquebaturPater, Faciamushomi- 
 
 fays that the So.n, Who from the nem fecundum Imaginem ec fimilitudinem 
 
 fripoJnnincr ma/^ Jil~ anA xirifh noftram, in noviffimis temporibus fe ipfuai 
 
 beginning made AA*m , and witn manife ft a n s h^minibus. 16. i. $ . c. i$. 
 
 whom the 0Mr fpoke faying, . 
 
 L?^ j ?4^^ Man, did Manifeft Himfelf to Men in the latter 
 
 days. 
 
 Your Hiftorian fays, that oar Image m the Twtf, is the 
 Image Qi God and Angels. But Irenxus {ays, the Angels did 
 not make us, and diat they cou'd not make the Image 
 of God, nor any other but the Word of G0^ ( 1. 4. c. 57 ) 
 TertulliAn ( adverf. frt xeam. . n 
 
 1 2. j fays, that God, in thisTfJC^, His icaqne paucis tamen manifefte diftin- 
 
 did not fneak to the Awtls as the ^ io ^^"^^P ^^^ Eft C 5 im 'P re 9 ui 
 
 *v . i^/varv iw uiw .fz'*.cf.> as tuu pronunciat, Spintus ec FAtet ad quem pro- 
 3feiW interpret, Who do not EC- nunci,t, er f//w de quo prouuaciat. Sic 
 
 knowledge OteSon, but that he et C2tcr<t ^ uje nunc ad p ^ row de f// l 
 
 F 2 fpoke
 
 vel ad Filium, nunc ad Filium, de Pttre, 
 vel ad Patrem^ nunc ad Spiritum pronunci- 
 antur, unamquarrique Perfatum in fua pro- 
 prietate conftituunt. Si te adhuc numeric 
 fcandalizat Tr/w/wm, quali non connexx in 
 unitiite fimplici, interrogo quomodo uicus 
 ft fwguJaris pluraliter loquitur? Faeiimus 
 fomintm ad lm<iginer,v el /tmilituditifm no- 
 Jhum, cum debuerit dixiflfe, Ftcitim homi- 
 nem ad Imaginem et fimilitudmem mcd,n\ 
 urpote unicus et- fivguhrit, fed et in e- 
 quentibus : Ecte Ai&vn. fattus efl UK^uum u- 
 mis EX NCBIS., Fallit, aut Ludit, ut cum 
 wins ec folus elTet, nuraeraffe Loqueretur : 
 aut numquid Angelis loquebatur, ut ffudai 
 interpretantHfj quia nee ipfi Filium agnof- 
 cunt ; an qaia- Ipfe crat Pjttsr, THius, Spiri- 
 tufy ideo pluralem fe prxftans, plttratifcr fibi 
 loquebatur ? Immo quia Jam adhsr^bat il- 
 li Filius, SecwndA Perfona, firmo ipfius ; et 
 urtijty Spiritus in fernone^ ideo pluraliter 
 pronunciavit, Faciamut et noftrum et wo/j; 
 Cum quibus enim faciebat hominem, et 
 quibus faciebat fimilem ? Cum F///0quidetn, 
 qui erat wdttturus hominem ; Spiritu vero, 
 qui etttfanttificMi,r.is hominem,quan eum \ii- 
 niftris et Arbitris, ex unitxte Trlnn&tis lo- 
 quebatur . Denique fequens Scriptura diftk- 
 guit inter Pcrfonis. Er fecit Dt us hominem^ad 
 Jinagivem Dei fecit itium. Cur non fan, fi wms 
 qui faciebat, et non erat ad Cujus faciebat? 
 Erat autem ad cujus Imaginem faciebat : 
 ad Filii fcilicet, qui homo futurus certior 
 et verier; Imaginem fuam fccerat dici ho- 
 minem qui tune de limo fbrmari habebaf, 
 Imigo-veri et fimiliiudo. Sedetin antece- 
 dentibus operibus mundi quomodo fcriptum 
 eft ? Primum quidem, nondum Filio apparen- 
 te, Et dixit Deus, Fix Lux et fafta eft: ipfe . 
 ftatim fermo,\vx vera, qui illuminat homi- 
 nem venientem in hunc mundum, et per 
 ilium mundialis quoque lux. Exinde au- 
 tem in fermone Cbrijfa adfiftcnte et admini- 
 ftrante Deus voluerit fieri et Deus fecit. 
 Et dixit Deus fat Firmamtntum, et fecit 
 Ecus Firmtmentum, et dixit Dens flaw Lu.' 
 min*ri&y el fecit Dtus Luminare majus et mi- 
 nus, fed et Caetera utique Idem fecit qui 
 et priora id eft fertna Dei, per quern omnia jRz- 
 &t funt, et fiw Quo foftum tit /&/'/ QH'I 
 
 VIALOGVE. 
 
 fpoke to the Son, and the 
 Ghoft^ and from hence he proves 
 the Trinity in Vnity, in exprefs 
 words , and as pofitive as -4- 
 thanafius Himfelfl He fays, 
 Scriptur* omnes et demonftrati- 
 onem^ et diftinttionem Trimtatis 
 oftendunt. That is, All the Scrip- 
 tures fbew both a Demo nft ration at d 
 DiHinttion of the Trinity. 
 
 After he quotes feverai Texts 
 where the Father fpeaks of and' 
 to the Son, and the Son. of and 
 to the Father ; and the Holy Ghoft 
 as a third Perfon, of the &&< 
 and of the So*. As, The Lord 
 JM to my Lord, &c. And thence 
 he proves the Diftinftion of 
 Perfons in the Trinity. 
 
 Origen (in Mat. p. 266.; fays 
 none cou'd Raife the dead, but 
 He :who had heard from the Fa- 
 ther^ Let us make Man, in our 
 Image, and none cou'd command 
 the Wind and Seas, but He by 
 whom they and all things elf^ 
 were made. 
 
 <WC, My Attthbr Notes that 
 the Socwa Tranflation agrees 
 with the ftilt ufed all along in 
 this Chapter, <ver. Let ther be Light 
 verf. 6. Let there be a 
 
 
 ment, &C. - .-+'- 
 
 ; CHR. He muft Note again, 
 
 tor I cannot find in thofe words! 
 
 oneSyllabk of Invitation to the 
 
 A*.
 
 The feconct DIALOGUE. 37 
 
 Angel S) OT tO any elfe, either td fi iP fe Deus eft, fecundum Jdhannem Deus 
 Aflift Him nr he Sfietfxtnrt Rni- ##fa**t habes <f* alium dieentem ut fi- 
 
 m, o oe a* war/. 1581 af> alium facieBtcm> A1ium autem o- 
 
 rather OH the Contrary, it IS a de accipere debeas, Jam profeffus fum; 
 
 fole Command, from an Abfc- ?#* n < /*/** nomine, ad <*////- 
 
 liit*> Aiithnrlft/ #/, non ad divifwnem. Caeterum, etfi 
 
 5 x fci uT)iqu? teneo MW(IWI /?^w inrr/iitfCo. 
 
 (j.) ouC. The next TV*/ he h*rentibu$ tamcn alium dicam oportet ex 
 
 Quotes is, Ge*. ?. 22. God faid, JS^fe ^H^JSl ^ ? euin 
 
 j .' i - qu WOT, Nam nee juberst, fi /p/^ fdfcret. 
 
 the Man is become as one of US, to dum juberet fieri Pereuir, tamen jubebar, 
 know Good And Evil. To which- haud f tbi J u ff"rus, fi uj-effet: aut fine 
 
 he gives two ^>rr/. i. That JSBSS*** n 
 God fpoke this to the Angels. 
 
 2. That others Tran (late the Hebrew words thus, theMaa 
 is become one of Himfelf, knowing Good and Evil. And 
 he fays, That it is thus Exprefs'd in the Cha/dee Tranfla- 
 tion by Onkelos. 
 
 CHR. To his firft Anfmr about the Angels, we have 
 fpoke already. As to the Tranflation of Onkelos, it is 
 thus. 
 
 Behold Adam is only or alone in tie Age from bimfelf. 
 (Ecce Adam unicus eft in faculo e xfe) The Senfe of whidi 
 I confefs is Difficult ; But your Author prefers an obfcure 
 Parafhrafe, before the Liter d Reading of the Hebrew, 
 Greek, Syriac, Arabic, and Latin, which are all Verbatim, 
 according to our Englifb Tranflation, and indeed which on- 
 ly can make Senfe of the Words. For pray tell me, what 
 is that to be One of Himfelf? What Ptfr^/e was this? 
 What Crime? That God banih'd him Panutife-for this? 
 Doubtlefs it was the Clearnefs and fullnefs of this Inter* 
 pr station which perfwaded your Author from the Com- 
 mon and Familiar reading of this Text\ 
 
 (4.) I will not trouble you with his Expofition upon 
 Gen. 11. 6. 7. The Lord (aid, let us go down, and ther 
 Confound their Language. It is the like as to thefe be* 
 fore* But I wou'd fee his .Anfwer to Gen. 19. 24. 
 
 SOC. He repeats it thus, p. 44. the Lord (Heb.Jehovati) 
 rained fire from the Lord (Htb. Jehovah) oat of Heaven* 
 
 And
 
 The fecond DIALOGUE. 
 
 And fays that the meaning is, Jehovah rained Fire from 
 Himfelf. And refers to what he is to fay on Zjcb. 3. 2. 
 
 CHR. And I will Expeft him at that Place. In the 
 mean time I will give you the Senfe of fame of the Ante- 
 Nicene Fathers upon this Text. 
 
 Ju/t. Man. (Dial cum Tryphon Jud.p. 277. 279. 357.) 
 interprets this of the Son* as a different Per/on from the 
 Father. Inrutus (adverf. Heref. 1. 3. c. 6.) fays the fame 
 and proves Chritt to be Definitive et abfolute Deum. And 
 that he is verus Deus et ex fua Perfona. True God abfo- 
 luetly, and in His own Perfon, and that the Lord rained 
 Fire from the Lord, was meant of Him. Tertullian^faetf. 
 Prax. . 1 3.) fays the fame, and proves the Trinity and 
 Vnity. Deos duos non prtferimus, we do not profefs two 
 
 Gods, and then he Explains himfelf non fqutf non et 
 
 Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et Spiritus Janet us deus y et deus 
 unufquifyue. Not that the Father is not God, and the Sox 
 God, and the Holy Ghoft God, and each of them God, &c. 
 
 Cyprian likewifc (Tettimon. \. ^. c. 33.} underftands 
 this Text The Lord rawed Fire from the Lord, to be meant 
 of Chrift. 
 
 But I go on, From p. 4$. to 51. and again from p. $j. 
 your Hifto. names feveral Texts, which are fpoke of Gad 
 in the Old Teftamcnt, and in the fame words are apply'd 
 to Chrift in the new Teftament. 
 
 (5.) Let us examin fame of them. It is faid Pfal. 45. 
 6. Thy Throne God is for ever and ever. This is ap- 
 ply'd to Chrift, (Heb. i.- 8.) 
 
 SOC In the Hebrew and in the Greek it is, God is 
 *'tty Throne ^c. thy Seat, Refting place, or Eftabltfhrnent) 
 for ever. 
 
 CHR. This I do deny ; and if the words cou'd be 
 both ways in the Original, that is, to bear the Con- 
 ftruftion of God is thy Throne, forever, or, Thy Throne, 
 God is for ever, (becaufe the Nominative and Vocative 
 are the fame in the word Theos) then the Qaeftion will 
 
 be
 
 ThefeconJD I A LOG V E. 
 
 be which of the ways we ought to take it. And I fay 
 the latter, for thefe reafons. Firft, ffcfc i. 8. is-a,.Com- 
 parifon 'twixt Chrift and the Angels, And this Text, "in 
 your Senfe, gives him no Preference, becaufe God is the 
 Eftablifhment of the dngels, and fo this Text may belong 
 to an Angel, as well as unto Chrif. Secondly, The fub- 
 fequent Part of the Verfe will not bear your Interpreta- 
 tion, viz. The Scepter of thy Kjngdom. This is certainly 
 ChriJPs Scepter and Kingdom that is fpoke of. And it 
 is abfolutely Incongruous, that the Throne ihouM not go 
 along with the Scepter and Kjngdow, for they always 
 belong to the fame Perfon. Therefor the Throne in this 
 Text is Chrifts, as well as the Kjngdom. Laftly, Thefe 
 Fathers who wrote before the Council of Nice, Read 
 this Text as we do, and apply it to Chrift as a Proof 
 of His Godhead. Cyprian adverf. Jud. 1. 2. c. 6.*Tertutt. 
 adverf. Jud. c. 14. Jud. adverf. Prax. c. ij. lre. adverf. 
 Hasref. 1. $. c. 6. Origen in John. p. 29. and upon this 
 Pfalm, in Catena Corderifo he lays that thrift is manifeftlj 
 God. 
 
 SOC. The Def. of the Hijl. c. 7. p. $j. fays this 
 Text may be apply 'd to Solomon. 
 
 CHR. The Apoflle has apply'd it to Chrift, and the 
 Primitive Fathers, even before Nice, underftood it, as we 
 have feen, in a Senfe which cannot be applicable to So- 
 lomon. In what other Senfe that Author wou'd apply 
 it to Solomon, let him fee to it. 
 
 SOC. He fays that he who is calPd God in this place 
 is faid to have a God by whom he is Anointed, which 
 cannot belong to the Supreme God. 
 
 CHR. This is fpoke of God's Exalting the Human 
 Nature of Chrift, in refpect of which (as well as of 
 His Eternal Generation) Chrift calls God his Father and 
 his God. Agaiuft this your Author offers nothing. But 
 to proceed.
 
 40 The jeconct DIALOGUE. 
 
 (6) In that moft Elegant and wondrous Rapture In 
 the Exaltation of God, Pfal. 68. Chrifl our Lord was 
 meant. As is evident from VeiT. 18. Thou Lift afcended 
 on High, Thou baft led Captivity Captive, Thou haft recei- 
 ved Gifts for men. Which St. Paul do's exprefly Inter 
 pret, and apply to Chrifl. Ephe. 4. 8. 
 
 SOC. Our Author fays to this, That this was literati} 
 meant of God ; and of Chrift only by way of Prophefy, or 
 ? 47* rather of Emblem, or Accomodatien. 
 
 CHR. But ftill here is the fame Stile, and Appellations 
 which are given to none but to God and Ckriff.. And 
 God forefeeing that Chrifl wouM be taken for 'Real God 
 by thefe Appellations, it is unaccountable that the Scrip- 
 ture (hou'd every where aflert this ftile, fpeaking of God 
 and Chrifl fo promifcuoufly, as that -what is faid of the 
 one Belongs to the other, and to none;elfe. Whereby 
 if we are not forced to acknowledge them to be 0^, 
 yet it is fuch a Colour and Tentation as cannot poili- 
 bly be fupposM God wou'd' lay before us, without a 
 defiga in Him to lead >us into fo Grofs and Capital 
 an Error. Which it wou'd be the Higheft Blafphemy 
 but to Imagin. 
 
 But fuppofe this Text be no otherwife true of God, 
 or not fo literally, 'but as God is Chrift? And fo was a 
 a Prophefy of God in Chrift. 
 
 SOC. That indeed wou'd end the bufmefs, and come 
 
 the length of a Demonflration. 
 ppb. 4 . 9 . CHRt g^ P j u i fcyS) that He who ^f ceK ^ > i n t j lis 
 
 Text, deftendedfrft into the Lower parts of the Earth . 
 
 And is the fame alfo that Afcended up far above all Hea- 
 . vens. He inferrs this Text as a Confequence from the 
 
 Gift of 'Chrifl to us, To us is given Grace according to 
 r the weafure of the Gift of Chritt. Wberefore,'\\z faith, 
 
 when He afcended up on High, He led Captivity Captive, 
 
 and gave Gifts unto men. And He gave fome Apoftles, 
 
 : fome Prophet^ and fome Evangelifts. &c. Thefe were 
 
 the
 
 
 The feconct DIALOGUE. 41 
 
 the Gifts given, and this Gift of Christ was the where- 
 for, why David wrote that Text. And no otherwife can 
 God be faid to have defcended into the lower parts of the 
 Earthy and thence to Afcend up Again on High, which St. 
 Paul tells us is the true meaning of that Text and inieris 
 it from the Text. 
 
 SOC. That Pfalm was Sung upon the Removing of the^r. 
 CHR. That -Ptafm. indeed begins with that Form, 
 which you find Num. 10. $_$. But it goes on from thence 
 to many other Exaltations and Triumphs of God, among 
 which, to that of Chrifts Ajcenfion in the i8th. verf. of 
 which the lifting up of the Ark was but a Type. And 
 tho' ther is an Allufion between them, and they may be 
 cotnpos'd in many things, yet the full Import of this 
 Text cannot be fill'd but in Chri& 9 as I have already 
 {hewn from St. Paul. And I might have given more In- 
 flances, but that thefe were fufficient. For example, it is faid 
 in the Text that he Received Gifts for Men. From whom 
 .did God .Receive Gifts 'to give to Men? 
 
 SOC. St. Paul renders it Gave Gifts to Men. 
 
 CHR. Therefore Both are true. Cbritt Received from 
 the Father, and Gave unto Men. And this cannot be ve- 
 rified in any other manner. 
 
 Again it is faid in the fame verfe, That he Received 
 thefe Gifts for men, yea, for the Rebellious alfo, that ths 
 Lord God might dwell Among them. 
 
 Now fee what fenfe this, will be, if it be not intended 
 of Chritt. That God fhou'd Receive Gifts from fome. other 
 which would imply fome other to be Greater than God. 
 And then the End of God's Receiving thefe Gifts, that 
 Gcd might dwell among Men. 
 
 God Purchased or Procured from another, That Himfelf 
 might -dwell among men, or be Gracious to men ! 
 
 But take notice of the Hebrew reading of this verfe, as 
 
 k is mark'd in the Margent of our Englifh Bibles ; where 
 
 what we render [for Men} is according j to the letter of 
 
 h G the 
 
 ' .* r
 
 4 2 The fecond D I A L GV E. 
 
 the Hebrew [J* the Mari] And then the verfe goes thus. 
 Thou (Chrift) haft received Gifts in the Man. i. e. in thy 
 Manhood, or Hamnn Nature: for it was in this refpecl:, 
 that He, cou'd be faid to Receive thefe Gifts which He 
 beftow'd. And this cannot belong to God any otherwife 
 Hift. Unit, than as Chrift is God. 
 
 t- 84< SOC. Thefe Gifts not being given till about a Thoufand 
 
 Years after David's time, Paul cou'd not poffibly intend 
 a Literal Interpretation of David's words, but only to Ac- 
 comodzte them to Chrift, becaufe Chrift aljo did alcend on 
 high, and gave Gifts to Men. To this effeft Grotius, Dr. 
 Patrick, and other famous Interpreters on this Text. 
 
 CHR. Dr. Patrick fays no fuch thing upon this 
 Pfalm, nor Grotius either upon this Pfalm, or the Parallel 
 place, Ephe. 4. He fpeaks nothing of this bare way of 
 Accomoddting only, which it may be to a hundred things, 
 that is, I may apply or fancy feverai things like it. On 
 the contrary, he fays, this Text was fullfPd in Chrift, 
 and that more Eminently, then in God's Defcent upon 
 Mount SiAy, and Afcending thence a'gain. fiuanto autem 
 hac eminentius per Chriftum pnt impleta nemo non videt. 
 Thus Grotius in his Notes upon Pial. 68. 18. and upon 
 Ephe. 4. 8. The difference he makes 'twixt thefe two Texts, 
 is, that the one was fpoken to God, the other of God. 
 So that he makes Chrift apparently to be God, becaufe 
 the Apoftle certainly fpeaks this Text of Cbrifi. Then he 
 takes notice of St. Paul's putting the word Give, for Re- 
 ceive, viz. that Chrift G*wGis, inftead of, Received Gifts, 
 as it is in the Pfalm, and he fays, this is excellently apply'd 
 to Chrift who Received Gifts from his Father, that He 
 might Give to Men. Dr. Patrick fays, that this is far 
 more Magnificently fulfild in Ctirift's Afcenfon, than in 
 God's Afanfton from Sivay. And you may fuppofe he 
 deals with his other famous Interpreters, whom he does 
 not nannie, as he has done with Grothts and Dr. PA- 
 ftifeft 
 
 And*
 
 He feconct V I A LQ G V E. 43 
 
 And for David's fpeaking this a Thoufand Years before 
 
 ; 'it came to pafs, I fuppofe you will make no greater 
 
 Difficulty of it, than of ' Pfal. 2. Where it is prophefied 
 
 of Chrift in the prefent Tenfe. This day I have begotten 
 
 Thee, which your Author interprets of this Refunettion. 
 
 All the Ancient, even Ante-Nieene Fathers, fpeaking of 
 this Text. Pfal. 68. 18. with one content do apply it 
 to Cbrif : and not only by way of Accommodation^ 
 as your Hiftorian fpeaks ; But that it was an Exprefs 
 Prophefy of Chrift. and Fulfilled, in Him, Which you 
 may fee in Juft. Mart. Dial. con. Tryph. p. 315. 258. 
 Iren. .'advert*.' Hasref. 1. 2. c. $6. 1. 4. c. 59. 1. 5, c. ji. 
 Tertutlian. adverf. Marcion. L 5. c. 8. de anima. c. 5$. 
 And Juft. Mart, in the abovefaid Dialogue, p. 255. 
 to 2 $8. applies tQ Chrift ft W. 24, The Earth is the Lords, 
 
 He hath founded it See. And that of Pfak 47. God 
 
 is gone up with a fhout^ the Lord with the found of a. 
 
 Trumpet, -God is the Kjng of all the Earth The 
 
 Princes of the People are gained to the God of Abraham 
 &C. And Pfal. 99. The Lord Reigneth^ let the People 
 
 tremble Exalt ye the Lord oar God, and rwrfhip at his 
 
 Foot-Stool- Mofes and Aaron among his Pntft* &c. And 
 
 Pfal. 45. Thy Throne God is for ever -and ever, &c. 
 
 SOC. But the Def. of the History, c. 7. p. $4. finds 
 out that feveral places of the Old Teftament are accommo- 
 dated to other things in the new Teftament as thefe 
 words, Their found went out into all the Ea-th, axd their 
 words into the ends of the World. By which the Hea-wns 
 are meant Pfal. 19. 4. and other works of Go^ which 
 (as it were) Preach His wifdom, and power and good- 
 nefs to all Nations. And Rom 10. 18 The <Mofile 
 applies this to the Preaching of the Gofpel all over die 
 World. 
 
 CHR. What wou'd your Author inferr from hence? 
 
 SOC. That ther is no harm in accommodating that 
 to Chrift in the new Teftament what wa* fpoken oi \jod 
 
 G 2 in
 
 44 The faond D I A L G V E. 
 
 in the Old Teftamcnt, and he fays fuch is the place in 
 Queftion. 
 
 CHR. That is to fay, becaufe one Creature may be 
 compar'd, or accommodated to another, therefor it is 
 Lawful to accommodate to a Creature the Incommunica- 
 ble Attributes of God. And to apply to Chrift (fuppo- 
 fing Him but a man) whatever we find written of Ged 
 in the Old Teftamenu 
 
 But befides, I have fliewn, that this place in queftion 
 is not only accommodated but fulfilled in Chrift, and con- 
 fequently was originally meant of Him, nay more emi- 
 nently than of God, or as God otherwife than as He is 
 in Chrift. And this from your beloved Grotius, whom 
 you wou'd have to be a Socinian, and whom you quote 
 upon this very place. But let us go on. 
 
 Hift. P ag. (?) p f al - 97- The Majefty of God is glorioufly fet 
 489. forth, in which the 7. ver. is Remarkable, which obviats 
 
 the Objection of Infer iour Gods, who are there call'd 
 Idols 9 that is, when Men pay Divine Honour to them ; for 
 that is it which makes any Creature to become an 'idol. 
 And tho* God communicats his Name to Creatures, and 
 calls fome of them Gods, yet he will not (hare his Wor- 
 fhip nor give his Honour to another : Of this he exprefo 
 himfelf to be Jealous, we muft not come near it. And 
 who ever arrogate it to themfclves are Idols and Falfe- 
 20. < Gods, and thofe that pay it to them are Idolaters, and 
 ' ftil'd the Generation of thofe who hate God. God rec- 
 kons this a Hating a Forfakwg, of Him, and calls it the 
 
 .4. abominAhle thtn & that H*~ h #**- And in Deteftation of 
 ' thefe Idols, and to fhew how far they Were from havinc 
 Worfhip paid to them, they are here Commanded them- 
 felves to Worfbip God. Confounded be all they that De- 
 light in vain Gods, fas our Common Prayer-Book Tran- 
 flates it) or that boatt them of Idols, fas the Bible Tran- 
 flation) Worfbip him all ye Gods, or Angels, as St. Paul 
 renders it. For Augels are Gods more than Men, they 
 
 are
 
 The feconcf D / A L 6 V E. 45 
 
 are the greatest Gods, of the Creation : But when they MM. 4. 9; 
 claim W or (hip to themfelves, they become Devils ; and Io - 
 if we Worfhip them, we make them Idols to us ; for 
 no Created Excellency can advance any Being fo far, as 
 not ftfll to be at an infinit Diftance from God: And 
 therefore no Creature can partake of his Worfhip: And 
 therefore either the Son muft not be Adorable, or he muft 
 not be a Creature. 
 
 And now what Invention could contrive a more pofi- 
 tive and uncontroverfible manner of calling the Son, God; 
 than to fay, Let all the Angels of God, or let ail other 
 Gods Worfhip Him. What is this but to call him the 
 Supreme Godt And manifeftly to make the Diftin&ion 
 'twixt God by Nature, and by Office! All thefe Gods by 
 Office are to Worfoip the God by Nature. Worfoip HIM 
 nil ye Gods, and this the Apoftle applys to Chrijt, and 
 fays, that it wa& fpoke of Him, and how to call Him Hebt I ' 6 
 God more direUy, and palpably cannot be fuppos'd. 
 
 SOC. My Author fays, that Heb. i. 6. is it not ren- ..' 
 dred right in our Englifh ,TranJlation, which fays, Again 
 when he bringeth the Fir ft -Begotten into the World he faith, 
 and let all the Angels of God Worfhip Him. 
 
 But my Author fays, that in the Greek 'tis, rvhet* he 
 bringeth again the Firft-begotten into the World, that isy 
 when he raifed Chrift from the Dead. 
 
 CHR. He miftakes: For the Greek is not as he Quotes 
 it, indeed the Greek puts n>he t before Again, or*v be Tra'Ajy, 
 and literally runs thus, when again he bringeth, but it is 
 not when he bringeth again, as your Author (lily infinuates, 
 that he might get it apply'd to Chrift's Refurreftion. 
 But what the meaning of again is in that verfe is put paft 
 any doubt, by Repeating the words immediatly preceed- 
 ing, for the Apoftle is giving feveral Inftances, and fo re- 
 peats the words iguVand agai 9 which is a moft Com- 
 mon and Familiar way of fpeaking. And I believe never 
 mifunderftoodbut in this place. Read the 5th. verfe, Vn- 
 
 to
 
 Thefeconci DIALOGUE, 
 
 to which of the Angels fad he, Thou art my Son ? And t 
 
 I will be to him a Father* And again, when he bringeth 
 
 the Firfl-begotten into the World what ordinary Wit 
 
 could have found out a ' new meaning for the laft again, 
 different from thofe going before it ? 
 
 50C. But why did not the Englifb Tranflation keep 
 the very order of the Words, as it is in the Greek, and 
 as you have now laft repeated it? 
 
 CHR. Becaufe it is not fo good Englifh, when again, 
 is not the Engltfb Style fo much as, again when, tho' 
 they both mean the fame thing ; And this Rule was never 
 obfervM in any Tranflation ; For the placing of the words 
 is different in moft Languages, and in this very Text the 
 Greek Words are in this order ; when but again he bring- 
 th or<zv 1 7ra%v &<ra,yoiyy which is not fo good En- 
 glifh, as, but again when 'he bringeth : And I fuppofe you 
 will fay is not a worfe Tranflation. 
 
 But as I faid before, all this Art is 'loft, for unlefs 
 the word again come after the word bringeth, it will 
 not ferve his turn, and in the Greek it is put before the 
 word bringeth^ which quite fpoils his Criticifm. But he 
 is refoiv'd this fhall not fpoil it; and therefore he ven- 
 tures boldly, and fays, that in the Greek 'tis when he 
 bringeth again. 
 
 SOC. But he has another Anfwer; He fays, 'tis un 
 49< certain whether St. Paul had any refpecl: to the Pfalm. 
 
 CHR. But he tells no Ground he had for that uncer- 
 tainty. All the difference 'twixt thefe Texts is this, the 
 Pfalm lays Godf, (Worfbip Him all .ye Gods) which 
 St. Paul renders Angels (Let aS the Angels of God 
 Worfhif Hint) which he knew to be included in the 
 meaning and import of the word, Gaels', and the Rea- 
 fqn of nis doing it is becaufe he is there making a Com- 
 parifon twixt Chrift and the Angels. So thac the wring 
 in the word Angels for Gods is only applying t'-e i ext 
 of theP/^/w to his pitfcnt Subject. Then the cn r ^ys 
 
 W w fit?
 
 The feeonct D I A L G V E. 47 
 
 Worfhip him, the other, Let them worfbip him. Which 
 is no alteration at all, unlefs you would infift, that the 
 Texts ought to be quoted Syllabically ; which is not ob- 
 ferved, nor ought to be in any Translation, becaufe of 
 the different Idioms of Tongues, which muft be obfervM 
 to Tranflate it into Senfe. But the Infpired Pen -men 
 of the New Teftament take greater Latitude, and in 
 their Quotations of the Old Teftament ftick only to 
 the Senfe, and often vary the Expreffion, of which there 
 are many Examples Exod. the 22. 28. It is written, thou 
 ft alt not revile the Gods, nor Curfe the Ruler of thy Peo- 
 ple : St, Paul repeating this Text, Quotes it thus ; thou 
 ft alt not Jpeak evil of the Ruler of thy People ; By the/fcfr 23. $ 
 word Gods here was meant the Judges and Governors 
 of the Land, and therefore St. Paul, applying it to them puts 
 in the word Ruler, as in the former cafe, the word Angels, 
 inftead of the word Gods. This I grant we have not 
 Authority to do, we are bound up to the words; But 
 St. Paul fpeaking by the fame Infpiration that did Di- 
 ftat the Text he Quotes, his Quotation is at the lame 
 time, a mod Authentick Expofition of the Text. 
 
 Many more Examples may be given of the like liber- 
 ty taken in the New Testament in their Quotation, oui of 
 the Old ; which (hall be produced if it be deny'd : fot 
 now I would be as brief as poflible. 
 
 But now it is no ways Material whether St. Paul Quo- 
 ted this from this Pfalm, or from the Septuagint Tranflation 
 of Deut. xxxii. 42. as Origin thinks, TK*), 'Ef^ws. For ftill 
 it was God fpoke thefe words, and they were fpoke of 
 Gbrtit. 
 
 SOC. He does not infift much upon this, it was but 
 to divert you, he has another Anfwer. He fays, That if p. 49, 
 St. Paul had refpeft to this Pfalm, pet he does not Quote 
 the words of the Pfalmifl, as if they were fpoken of Chrift ; 
 but only declareth the Decree of God (known to him by the 
 Spirit) for Subletting the AngeU to Qhrif,in the fame words 
 
 tbaf
 
 48 The . feconct D I A L G V E. 
 
 that the Pfdmitt had ufed on another occapon, beatufe they 
 are words moH proper to exprefs that Decree, .for the Wri- 
 ters of the New Te&ament generally affeft to fpeak in Scripture 
 Language. 
 
 C//R. You allow that by the word Firtt Begotten in 
 the Text Heb. i. 6. Christ is meant. 
 
 SOC. Yes certainly. Our Author acknowledges it in this 
 fame place. 
 
 CHK. And St Paul fays pofitively, that this was faid 
 of the Fir ft Begotten, for after feveral other Texts which 
 St. Paul Quotes as fpoken of him, he brings in this as 
 
 Verfe 5. one. He (God) faid thou art my Son .and again ; I 
 
 will be to him a Father and again, when" be bringetb 
 
 the fir ft begotten into the World, be faith and let all the Angels 
 
 of God rvorjhip him. All this was vifibly 4 fpoken of the 
 
 fame Perfon, and altogether, yet your Author fays, thefe 
 
 laft words were not fpoken of Chrift : To fay that one 
 
 of thefe Texts was not fpoken of Him, tho' the reft were, 
 
 and to give no Reafon, nor fp much as a prefumption 
 
 for this, but to think to put it 'Upon his Ipfe dixit, this 
 
 is beyond example: It (hews a refolved man ftrugling 
 
 even to death under the weight of Trutb. 
 
 SOC. He fays this was only a Prophecy of Cbrifl. 
 CHR. Ergo it was true, and Ergo it was fpoken of 
 Cbrifi, which your 'Author denies, and yet cannot deny it. 
 SOC. He fays, thefe were the fitteft words to Ex- 
 prefs it. 
 
 CHR. They were indeed. But what is the Rea- 
 fon 
 
 SOC. Beeaufe the Writers of the New Tejlament affecl: 
 to fpeak in Scripture Language. 
 
 But dp they affecl: to afcribe to Creatures, the Glori- 
 ous Attributes of God ? Is it lawful to apply to a Man 
 whatever I find faid of God, becaufe I affect to fpeak in 
 Scripture Language? and becaufe I find all the Angels of 
 God, commanded to Worfhip God, muft I therefore bid 
 
 them
 
 The fecond DIALOGUE. 49 
 
 them Worfhip one who is not God ? And notwithiran- 
 xiing that in the fame place I find all them C*nV and 
 Covfoitxded who Worfhip any other but God? 
 
 If our Side fhould produce fuch a Reafon as this, what 
 Mercy would you have on us ? It would require more 
 implicit Faith to fwallow fuch Reafoning, than even the 
 Notion of the Trimly. 
 
 But this J muft Confefs, that ther never was a Caufe 
 more obftinatly defended, he fights to the laft Man, and 
 leaves nothing unfaid, whether it be true, or falfe, what- 
 ever may amufe, or put off. 
 
 But this, with confidering Men, pluks up his Caufe 
 by the very Roots, and tho' they may admire the Variety of 
 his Shifts and Turnings, it is but to fee with how much 
 Pains and Skill he quits his hold. 
 
 SOd The Def. oj the Hijlory, Chap, the 7. p. 3 5. fays, 
 that this Axfoer of the Htftorian is a very found and ;- 
 dicious dnfiver. 
 
 CHR. This is the beft Argument he brings to prove 
 it, and yet he wonders People will not be fatisfied with 
 it. 
 
 SOC. He has found out a Text Deut. 32. 45, where 
 inftead of Rejoyce ye Nations , with his Peopie ; which is 
 the Englifh Tranflation, he fays, the Seventy Renders i c 
 thus, '/ v<^swv\tsfrTQa<* 'ce'/raf rrfoinl^ AyvsAot 0&S i. e. Let all 
 Angels of God Wor/bip Him. And he would rather have 
 the Apoftles Quotation to be from this place, becaufe 
 he fays, thefe words in-.De/tt. are not fpoken of God, 
 but of Gods People the IJraelites 9 and if this can be faid 
 of Gods People, he hopes it may be faid of Chrift too, 
 without concluding from thence, that he is the Supreme 
 God. 
 
 CHR. Thefe words in the Englifh are indeed fpoken of 
 Gods People: Rejoyce with his People. But the Greek Rea- 
 ding he Quotes, cannot be meant ofthe,P^/<?, but of God. 
 And yet their meaning is the fame ; they are both a 
 
 H refult
 
 5 o The feconcf VIALOGV E. 
 
 refult from the Confideration of GOU*s Vengeance upon 
 his Enemies, and Mercy to his People. The one invites 
 the Nations to Rejoyce for this \vith his People, the other 
 for this introduces the Angels Adoration, not of the Peo- 
 ple, (that is an abfurd Thought) but of God; for His 
 Mercy to his People, which is plain from the very words, 
 thus then according to the Greek : Let the Angels of God 
 Worfhip Hint, for he mil Avenge the Blood of His Ser- 
 vants, &c. But your Author would have it ; Let the An- 
 gels of God Worfbip the People, becaufe God mil Avenge, 
 
 &c. ' 
 
 Is not the Him there (Worfhip Him) the fame Him, 
 with He who will Avenge See? But you would have the 
 firft Him, mean the People (Worfbip Him) and the fecond 
 to mean God (He will Avenge) to call the People Him 
 in this Place, is a fort of Welch ^ or Highland Englifh. 
 But this is done by that Authority and ftrength of Rea- 
 fon, which interpreted the {And) and the (JTkoii) Heb, 
 i. i. which you flhall fee prdently, and is a matter piece 
 of the Socinian Subtlety and Integrity. In the mean time 
 we muft: iofe our pretty Conceipt from the Greek verfion 
 of Deut. 32. 43. and the Idolatrous Inference we would 
 Tiave brought from it, of Commanding Angels to worfhip 
 Men. If Mens worfhiping Angels be Idolatry, for Avgels to 
 worfhip Men muft be a Prepofterous and Monfterous Ido- 
 latry, and makes Angds moreFoolifh than Men. BefideS;, 
 I fuppofe that your Author believes that it was the Good 
 Angels were here fpoke of, and he makes them Idolaters 
 too. No matter! Any thing to avoid the Divinity of 
 Chrift! 
 
 But after all it is moft probable tbat by Angels in this 
 Text no more is meant than the NAtions mention'd in the 
 Englifh Tranflation ; and fo ther will not be that Difcre- 
 pancy 'twixt the Greek and Englifb Translations which we 
 imagin. We know the Jews reckon'd all the Gentile Na- 
 tions to be 70, and that every of thefe NAtions had a Pre- 
 
 fident
 
 The feccnJ DIALOGVE. 51 
 
 to Govern it: But that God took the Govern- 
 ment of Ifrael to Himfelf. And tbefe Prefident Angels are 
 often put for the Nations whom they Govern'd Thus it 
 is in the 8th. verfe of this Chapters Where Afofes is repeating 
 God's great regard to Ifrael, even in the days of Old, before 
 they were a People ; in that, after the Flood, when he Bi- 
 vided the World into Nations he did it with relpeft to the 
 70 Sons of 7/r^/ (Ex. i. 5. ) for he divided it juft into 
 Seventy Nations, which are all particularly nam'd in the 
 10 of Geneps The Sons of the three Sons of Nvak there 
 reckon'd being juft Seventy. The Seventy Nations fay 
 the Jew, God committed to the care of Seventy Angels, 
 but he referved Ifrael for his own Government. Here 
 was the Theocrajie, and indeed ther is a leading to this, or 
 great part of it, in the words of the Text. Remember the 
 Days of Old, fays Mofes, Deut. 32. 7. Conftder the years of 
 many Generations, when the moft High divided to the 
 
 Nations their Inheritance : When he federated the Sons of 
 Adam, he fet the Bounds of the People , according to the Num- 
 ber of the Children of Ifrael ( the Seventy read it ) accord- 
 ing to the number of the Angels, which is the fame number 
 according to the jewifb Computation, (i.e. 70,^ For, or 
 But the Lords Portion is his People : Jacob is the Lot. ( or 
 Cord. i. e. the Extent ) of his Inheritance, of His Theo- 
 cratical Government, leaving to his Angels the Immediate 
 Government of the Seventy Nations of the Gentiles. 
 
 Here then Angels being put for the Nations by the Se- 
 venty Interpreters in the 8th. verfe why may we not rea- 
 fonably conclude that it is taken in the fame Senfe in the 
 4$d. verfe of the fame Chapter, where the Seventy Nation? 
 are call'd upon to praife God with his People Ifrael i 
 
 But whether it be fo, or be not {o, it can never r 
 your Authors Senfe, to have the Angels, 'Wort "<-/. 
 People. 
 
 #2
 
 52 The feconct DI ALfTGV E. 
 
 SOC. But my Defender has another Saho for this Text 
 Heb. i. 6. When be bringetb the firft begotten into the World 
 he faith and let alt the Angels of God Worfbip him. My Au- 
 thor fays that was the Heavenly World, i. e. when God 
 brought Chrift into Heaven after his Refurettion, it was then 
 the Angels were to Worfhip Him. 
 
 CHR. Why ? were they not toWor/bip him before* 
 But do's that Defence-maker name any Authority^ any 
 various reading of the Text, or the Interpretation of any 
 Father , or any fort of Reafin for his Addition to the 
 Text, and putting the word Heavenly to World. 
 
 SOC. No. Only fays, it is, as if the Apoftle fiiould 
 have faid fo and fo. 
 
 CHR. For the future I defire you would advife him 
 to let the Apoftle fpeak his own words, and not to run the 
 hazard Revel. 22. 18. of having all the Plagues written 
 in the Book added to him, for Adding to any part of 
 the Word of God ; or to think to impofe upon unwary 
 Readers, by corrupting inftead of explaining the Texts of 
 Holy Scripture. But we have been too long with this, 
 let ns go on to the next. 
 
 (8.) Pf. 102. 2<f. " Of old haft thou laid the foun- 
 " dation of the, Earth, and the Heavew are.tbe Works of 
 '* thy Hands. They fbaH periflj but thou (halt cndur^ yea 
 " aS of them (bail wax old like a Garment, .as a Veftur* 
 " fbalt thou change then and they {ball be changed, but thmc 
 " art the fame, and thy Tears fbatt have no end. This" is 
 apply 'd to Chrift Heb. i. 10. 
 
 SOC. My Author will not have this fpoke of Chrift in 
 && P- 5- that place of Heb. but of God only. 
 
 CHR. Does he tell to what end thefe words are brought 
 there by the Apoftlet 
 
 SOC. No, but he endeavours to make out the Coherence 
 thus. And thou Lord haft laid the Foundation of the Earth- 
 Bat to which of the Angels faid He, fit thou on myrieht 
 band* As he faith to Chritt> Ffal. no. i. 
 
 CHR.
 
 CHR. This isfuch a wayoffhewing a Coherence \ Even 
 Imagination cannot find any thing like a Coherence in it. 
 
 SOC. It was the Founder of the Earth fa id, Sit 9n wj 
 right Hand. 
 
 CHR. And did the Apoftle repeat over fo diftindlly 
 three whole Verfes out of the 102. Pfalm, to fhew that 
 it was the Founder of the Earth, that is, God, who faid, 
 Sit on my Right Hand in Pfalm no? Which no Body 
 even Doubted ; and is fuffidently declared in the words 
 themfelves, Pfalm no. i. The Lord faid unto my Lord, 
 and is not at all proved by thefe words Pfalm 102. where 
 the Pfalmejl is treating of another Subject. 
 
 But pray tell me, to what purpofe was the word And. 
 
 Heb. i. 40? An^ Thou Lord in the beginning from 
 
 the ^th. verfe there is a Comparifon carried on betwixt 
 Chrift and the Angels, and feveral Particulars are reckoned 
 wherein He had the Preheminence above the Angels, all 
 join'd together with the Copulative, And, viz, Chrift had 
 the Preheminence in this, And this, And this unto which 
 of the Angels faid He, Thou art my Son. And, again,! will 
 
 be to Him a Father And again to the Son, He faith, 
 
 Let all the Angels of God Worfhip Him And, Thy 
 
 Throne O God, is for ever and ever And, Thou Lord 
 
 in the Beginning haft laid the Foundation of the Earth' 
 
 Now our Hiftortan cxcepts this laft And, and fays it 
 muft belong to the fame Perfon to whom all the Reft do 
 belong that go before it, and that follow it thro' the 
 whole Chapter: And gives no other Reafon for it than 
 for the Sake of that fine Coherence you have feen above; 
 that is indeed, to deftroy the whole Coherence tf \hzt Chap- 
 ter, and make it not only Non-/en]e, but a downright 
 Fallacy and Prevarication in the Apoftte. To flip in a Texts 
 which helong'd only to God, among thofe Texts which 
 were meant of Chrift, and to reckon it as one of the 
 number by the Copulative And, whereas it fhould have 
 been exprefly excepted with a But. This was faid of
 
 TheJeconJ DIAL G V E. 
 
 Chrijl, Ana this, And this, But this was faid of God only. 
 Thus it rauft have been expreft in the Hifiorians fenfe. 
 In which, there is no reafon in the World for bringing 
 in thefe Texts of Pfalm 102. there is no Connexion be- 
 tween them and the reft, they Difturb and Confound the 
 whole meaning and drift ofc the Place, and cannot be re- 
 conciled tofatr Meaning nor Honefty in the Writer. 
 . SOC. The Defence of the Hiftory. c. 7. p. 34. fays, that 
 the icth. verfe of Heb. i, viz. Thou Lord in the Begin- 
 ning haft laid the Foundation of the Earth is not Cited 
 
 by the Apottle as fpoken of Chrift or with intention to ac- 
 commodate it to Him ; but becaufe it was necefTary for 
 explaining the word, T%, [ they (ball Perifh ] in the fol- 
 lowing words, which he had occafion to ufe for expref- 
 fing the Duration of Chrips Kingdom. 
 
 To make you Underftand this, you muft kno w, that 
 my Author applies exprefly to Qhrift, the n and 12 verf. 
 of Heb. i. viz. They (the Heavens and the Earth) Jball 
 peri(hy but Thou remainefl ; and they all fltall WAX old AS 
 doth a Garment^ and as a Veflure {ball Thou fold them up, 
 and they [hall be Changed ; but Thou art the fame, and thy 
 Tears fail not. 
 
 Thefe Words, He faith, are a Defcription of the Du- 
 ration of Chrift^ Kingdom, whicb is Immutable, and will 
 laft for ever, and are a Confirmation of what went be- 
 fore Pf. 45. Thy Throne God is for ever And ever. Thefe 
 two Scriptures, PC. 45. 6, 7. and Pf. 102. 25, 26, 07. 
 be fays the Apoftle quotes for the fame Purppfe, viz. to 
 ILew the Duration of Chri/Ps Kingdom, which are fepa- 
 rated from one another only by the word And. 
 
 CHR. I thought And had been a f. nuUtive, that did 
 not Separate, but Join things together. And fo I fuppofe 
 your Author wiU allow it in all places that ever were 
 read, except the firft And in the ibth verfe of the ift.to 
 the Hebrew, which is.the'v&wJ he here fpeaksfrfV/For ft And 
 be And there, then thefe words, An-Tbw ( JLord i tk* 
 
 beginning
 
 The fectnd D I A L G V E. 55 
 
 beginning has laid the Foundation of the Earth, &c. muft 
 belong to Chrift, as well as all the other Ands which are 
 merition'd in the fame place. 
 
 But here is another piece of Arbitrary Interpretation, 
 which exceeds making Copulatives, Disjunctives, or any 
 thing elfe that ever I read, except in your Author. It will 
 not need a Confutation, (hewing it to you will .be Suf- 
 ficient. 
 
 Read thefe words, Heb, 1. 10, n, 12. Thou Lord in the 
 beginning haft laid the Foundation of the Earth ; and the 
 Heavens are the works of THINE Hands, They foa/l periflr, 
 but THOV remainejl ; and they all /ball wax old as doth a 
 Garment, and as a Vejlure (halt THOV fold them up, and 
 they {bait be changed, but THOV art the Same, and THT 
 years /hall not fail. 
 
 Now who would imagtn, but all this was fpokenof 
 the fame Perfon ? 
 
 I fuppofe it will not be deny'd, but the Prophet meant 
 them all of the fame Perfon, when he firft wrote them, 
 Pfal. 102. And how the Apo/tle came to alter it in the 
 Quotation is fomewhat difficult to apprehend. 
 
 Thou, didft this, and Thou didft this, and Thou didft 
 this, fays the Apojlle, of Chrifl y repeating the words which 
 the Prophet hzA fpoken of God. 
 
 Says our New Author the firft Thou fhall not belong 
 to Cbri(k, nor fo much as be Accommodated to Him ; but 
 all the reft of the Thou*s fhall belong to Him, and to 
 no body elfe. This is to folve the Difficulty of the 
 And's which we have fpoke of before. 
 
 But what was the firft Thou brought in for, if it was 
 not intended to mean the fame Perfon with all the reft 
 of the Thau's which did follow ? Or why was it not 
 told us that one -Thou was meant of one Perfon, and 
 another of another, to prevent miftakes, efpecially in fo 
 material a point as that of miftaking a Creature for God ? 
 And when the expreffion was lo necefTary to be mifta* 
 
 ken
 
 $6 The jennet DIALOGVE. 
 
 ken, that there was no Poflibility of avoiding it, with- 
 out taking Words and Expreffions in fuch a Senfe as thet 
 is not one Precedent for in any Language, or any Wri- 
 ting that ever was upon the face of the Earth ; Nor 
 would any man in the World be Underftood, that Spoke 
 or Wrote^ in that manner. 
 
 And then to give it as a Reafon for all this, that it 
 was necedary to underftand the firft Thou verf. 20. of a 
 Different P erf on from all the others, for Explaining the 
 following words : Whereas it is that which Confounds 
 them, and puts them out of all Rules of fpeaking intel- 
 ligible among Mankind. And then to Exult in this and 
 cry out. And now I appeal to any Reader, whether this 
 be an abfurd Senfe* Is not this Explication clear? But is 
 not the Senfe which the Trinitarians wou*d put upon this 
 place, both abfurd and inconfijlent ? This was Modef ! 
 But have you any more upon this Text ? 
 
 SOC. He proves that fuppofe Cbrijt had indeed Cre- 
 *ted the World, yet the Creation cannot be afcrib'd to 
 Him in this place, Heb. i. 10. 
 
 Def nib CHR. That will make fome amends for his Thot?s 
 P. 34; and his Anfs. Pray let us hear his Proof. 
 
 SOC. Becaufe the Apoftle in this Cbapter,does not (peak of 
 what is Natural or Effcntial to Chriji^ but of what he 
 has Received from Goa, ., ^ 
 
 CHR. How does he prove this? 
 
 SOC. He fays this appears by verfr4. the words are 
 thefe, being made fo much better than the Angels, There- 
 fore the Afojlles Scope, is to {how the Excellency that 
 Chrif obtain'd, not by Nature, or of Himfelf, but that 
 which He had by Donation. 
 
 CHR. Why might not the AfofileQnsw it both ways ? 
 Both from the Excellency Chip had by Nature, and by 
 
 Dotation? 
 
 , ^^^ B "VO: 'V- ; T;:, ! .,SOG
 
 The feccxJ DIALOG E. 57 
 
 SOC. My Author does not meddle with that. But he is 
 very Angry at the word Inheritance, verf. 4. viz. That 
 Chrifl fhou'd have by Inheritance a more excellent name > 
 than Angels. He fays the words by Inheritance are Falfe ; for 
 the Name Chrifl has obtained, came to Him by free Do- 
 nation, and not by Inheritance. 
 
 CHR. To ask my former Queftion, why may it not 
 be both ? Both by Don At ion and Inheritance? It is faid ver. 
 a. That God appointed Chrifl Heir of nil things. I rvi/lgive 
 Thee the Heathen for thine Inheritance Pf. 2. 8. So tliat 
 your Author fhew'd too much Rage, per Inadvertence, at 
 the word Inheritance, to fay that it was Falfe, and that 
 Chrifl had it not by Inheritance. 
 
 SOC. Having thus (hewn, fays my Author, that Chrifl is 
 
 not faid to have Created the World 
 
 CHR. Ay ! Having Sfown it indeed, as he has Shewn all 
 the reft. By fuch Arbitrary Supposes and Confequences, 
 which fcmetimes are paft all Human understanding, of 
 which AVC have had a tafte. But we muft have more. 
 
 I pafs here feveral Texs Nam'd in this Hiflory, becaufe 
 I would come to the moft Material. And not to fwell 
 this to too Great a Bulk. And now I come to the Pro- 
 phets. 
 
 (9.) CHR. Your Hiftorian Names Ifa. 6.1, ,9. 1 [A\V the 
 
 -Lard fitting upon A Throne 1 heard the voice of the Lord 54- 
 
 go tell this People, hear ye indeed, but under fl: and not 
 Shut their eyes, &c. This Appearance of God is afcrib'd 
 to Chrifl. Job. 12. 41. Thefe things faid 1SAIAS when he 
 fan? His Glory. 
 
 -c The Words in St. John Are to be underflood not of Chrifl, 
 'but of God-, for God only is intended in the foregoing verfe, 
 as all confefs. 
 
 CHR. I wonder he did not lieht upon this Anfcvtr 
 before. 
 
 <SOC How could that be, till he came to thisText. ' 
 ( 
 
 I CHR.
 
 5 g - _ The fecondf DIALOGUE. 
 
 CHR. Yes, it will ferve all the Texts which the New 
 Teflament brings out of the Old. We argue, that what 
 is faid of Got in the Old Te fitment is apply 'd to Chrijl in" 
 the New ; and that therefore Chrifl muft be God. He 
 Anfneriy fuch a TV** was fpoken of God, Ergo, fays he, 
 not of Cbrif. Which is not only begging the Queftion : 
 But if it were not fpoke of God it would be no Argu- 
 ment in this Caufe. But he Cunningly Slips in the Word 
 Only. That God Only, is intended in the foregoing verfe. 
 That God is intended, We fay ; but that it is to the E- 
 clufion of Cbrift, he rnuft prove, y 
 
 All the Queftion will be, who is meant by the [His] 
 in the Text. Thefe things, faid Efaias when hefarv HIS Glory. 
 The next words are Material, which our Author has left 
 out in his Quotation, and which make out the remainder 
 of that fhort verfe. Thefe things faid Efaias, when he faw 
 his Glory, and fpake of Him. 
 
 SOC. How then fhall we Know who is this [ Him? ] 
 CHR. Read before and after, and you will plainly fee, 
 whom the Apoftle is there fpeaking of. Thefe thiigs-jpake 
 Job. 12. JtfuS) and hid himfelf. But tltf He had done fo in Any Miracles 
 
 yet they believed not on HIM. Tbat the faying of 
 
 Ifaias.w/^ be futtflled - Tbefe things faid 
 41. be far? HJS Glory, andfpake of HIM. Nevertheief* among t&t 
 42t Chief Rulers many dfo believed on HlM^~r hut they did. 
 not confifs HIM. t^ i ^-& vo ' 
 
 Now to fay that Every one of thefe HIS and HlM y 
 muft refer to the Jeftts who is there mentioned, except 
 one His in the Middle, and that muft be meant of ano- 
 ther, is a Confounding the Senfe, and all Propriety of 
 fpeaking. It is Like the And*s, and Thotfs before men- 
 tioned. 
 
 But it is wrote, that JfaiM faid thefe things when he 
 faw His Glory, and Spake, or Prophefied, of Him. As 
 Abraham rejoyced to fee His day. So, fays Grotius ( in Loc.) 
 Ifaias faw the Glory of Chrijl. 
 
 Was
 
 The feconcf D I A L V E. \ 
 
 Was it God that Ifaias Prophefted of, or Chritt ? 
 
 But thefe words, go unto this People, in the 'bovefaid 
 Text of Ifaiah, are afcrib'd to the Holy Ghoft Aft. 28. 25, 
 26. rveU (pake the Holy Ghoft by Ifaias, frying, Go unto this * 
 People. &c. wT 
 
 SOC Our Author Anfwers, That was becaufe theVi* 
 (ion And, aH the words there mention *d were a Scene wrought 
 i the Prophets mind, ( not exihited to his outword Senfes ) 
 by the Spirit or Power of God.\ jfcrfv/ 
 
 CHR. Do you apprehend the meaning of this An- 
 fwer? J!*. 
 
 SOC.lt is foraewhat Difficult. 
 
 
 CHR+ I Confefs, it exceeds my Under ft and ing. I can- 
 not fee the Confequence of it. Becaufe the Vifion was A 
 Scene wrought in the Prophets mind. Therefore what ? There- 
 fore that which the Prophets afcribes to God, the dpoftle 
 does not afcrtbe 'to the Holy Ghoft? Will this follow ? 
 Nay the Holy Ghoft fpeaks here as a Perfon, that IJbould verf* 2?. 
 bed them. 
 
 SOC. Our Author fays nothing of that. 
 
 But in Mr. B/W/f's Expofition of If. 6. 9, 10. Publifli'd 
 (with other of our Trah; a. 1691. call'd [The faith of 
 one God, &rc,] p. 1 2. difputing againft this Topick of 
 yours, of drawing Arguments from Texts of the Old Te- 
 ftantent fpoken of God, which feem to be apply 'd to Chrift, 
 in the New, gives one Inftance, for all, to Confound you 
 for Ever : for he proves that, by this Method, Ifatas, as 
 well as Qhrif muft be God-, becaufe that Text If. 65. i. 
 [I am fought #f them that asked not for me', 1 Am found of 
 them that fought me not, I fad, Behold me, behold me unto 
 * Nation that was not calt'd by my Name"} is, in the loth 
 of the Rom. verf. 20. afcribed to Ifaiah. [But Jfaias is 've- 
 ry bold, and faith, I was found of them that Jought me not^ 
 &c>] therefore /fays Mr. Eidle) Ifaiah is the Lord. And 
 thus he Ridicules the Arguments drawn from: this head, 
 .,-.?- 
 I 2
 
 do The feconct DIALOGS E< 
 
 CHR. I thank you very kindly for this, whereby t<r 
 Expofe that Pragmatical Heretick and Ignorant Pedant 
 School-Mafter John Bidle, your Great and Admir'd Afo- 
 file. \ cannot think he had a Boy of ten Years of age 
 in his School, who Reading that Text Rom. 10. 20. 
 cou'd Underftand it as if Ifaiab had fpoke thofe words 
 If. 65. i. of himfelf, or that the Apoftle cou'd fo poflibly 
 muAinderftand him ; and not rather that he Quoted this 
 out of Ifaiah, as what Ifaixh repeated from the Mouth 
 ef God, and fpoke in the name of God, and not of Ifaah, 
 The whole Context fhews it. Whoever will believe 
 Eidle to have had Senfe or Reafon, after this, has a Pitch 
 of Reafon fit to be a Socinian. But let's go on. 
 i& p .55. (10.) Ifa* 7. 14. A Ptrgin ftaS conceive and bear a Son, 
 and Jbatt call his Name Immanuel. ' Tis added, Matt, i . . 2 J . 
 which being interpreted is, GOD WITH US. 
 
 SOC. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and therefore did not 
 Interpret the Hebrew. Name.. 
 
 CHR. But if he wrote in Hebrew, for fake of thejww* 
 as lome think, 'tis generally believ'd that he wrote the 
 fame Gofpel in Greek too: or Tranflated his own He- 
 brew into Greek 9 or forae other of the Infpir'd Pen me 
 of the Scripture, and therefore the Greek of St. Matthews 
 Gofpel is acknowledged for Scripture by all the. Chriftian 
 Church. 
 
 SOC. But our Author fays^ That we are not bound to 
 Submit to the Interpretation of the Greek Tranflator) being 
 an unknown and Ob/cure Perfan, ; 
 
 CHR. Does he offer any proof for this? 
 
 SQC. No. He fays no more pf it. 
 
 CHR. Then he makes good his Chara&er, that he ne- 
 ver wants Something to fay, be it true or falfe. But we 
 go on. 
 
 His. p.. 55. C 11 '^ ^ a> ^' ^4- ^ fi*U be a Steve of Stumbling, &C. 
 This is fpoken of God in the Prophet, and apply d to 
 Chri/l. Rom. 9, jj. i Pet. a. 8. 
 
 SOC,
 
 Tbefeconcf DIALOGUE. 
 
 SOC. This is only as Chrifl was alfo a Stone of Stum- 
 bling, not that He was the fame Stumbling Stone which 
 the Prophet fpoke of. 
 
 CHRi But the Apoftle calls Him that fame Stumbling 
 Stone. They Stumbled at that Stumbling-Stone; as is 
 written-, Behold I' lay in Sion A' Stumbling-Stone, &c. 
 
 The next is a great Text, Ifa. 9. 6, 7. Vto at *. 
 Child is born y unto us a Son is given, He /ball be calPd 
 Wonderful Councellor, the Mighty God, the Evetlajiing Father, 
 the Prince of Peace. Of the increafe of His Government 
 and Peace there /ball be no End ; upon the Throne of David 
 to order and eftablifo it with 'Judgment And Jujlice flow 
 hence for th y and forever. The Zjai of the Lord of Hofs 
 fhaH perform tbis. 
 
 SOC. This cannot be a Prophefy of Chrifl^ becaufe it fpeaks 
 of A' Princ* aft nutty Born at that time, ut& us A Child 
 IS Bern. 
 
 CHR. It is the Language of Prophefy tofpcakpf things 
 to come, as Prefent : Nay fometimes as of things done 
 and paft. The Lord SAID unto my Lord, which your P y 4 /. no . 
 Author acknowledges to be a Prof be fy of Ckrtft. Thou*, 
 art my S'on r THIS DAT have I begotten Thee, which our 
 Author fay sis meant of Chrift's Rejurretfion. Thou ART * ! 
 a Priefl for ever 9 after the Order of Melchifedec. Spoken 
 of Chrifl fo long before. But this is too obvious to be 
 infifted on, our Author himfeU acknowledges it, tho' now 
 he nas a bad Memory, he infifts upon it and proves it 
 p. 104. and gives leveral Inftances. 
 
 SOC. Then there is no way to efcape the force of this 
 Text, but what our Author has taken, which is to deny 
 the Tranjlation. He fays in the Hebrew it is thus. Vnto 
 us A Child is Born^ unto us A Son is given the Won- 
 derful Counsellor ; the Mighty God, the EverUfting Father /bail ' 
 name Him the Peaceable Prince, His Government /ball be 
 multiply* d (i. e. He /ball Reign long y even Twenty nine Tears) 
 He fh^tt have very great Pence ^ from henceforth to 
 
 the
 
 62 The foonJ DIALO G V & 
 
 the End of His Life. The Z$d of the Lord of Ho/Is ft, aB 
 perform this. i. e. God's Love to His chofen People (hail 
 make good this Prophefy. For, he fays, all this was 
 fpoken of HezekUh, becaufe he Reign'd Twenty nine 
 years, and in that time there was only one Expedition 
 agatnft hiin> and that alfo Unfuccefsful. 
 
 CHR. It belong' d more literally to Queen Elizabeth, 
 who Reign'd almbft twice as long, and in great Peace, 
 except the one Expedition of the Spanifb Armada, and that 
 alfo Vvfuceefsful. 
 
 It is a great Degree of Obftinacy to interpret fuch 
 Wonderful, Lofty, and Myfterious Words, each of which 
 commands Admiration, only to mean that a Kjng Reign'd 
 Twenty nine years. Can that go down with any Man 
 of Common Senfe? 
 
 But this it felf muft not do, for his Reading of the 
 Text is wholly out of his own head. 
 <SOC. He fays it is fo in the Hebrew. 
 CHR. He Jays fo, but he does not offer to Prove it. 
 And becaufe this is fo mighty and unanfwerable an Au- 
 thority proving the Divinity of Christ , and that our Au- 
 thor is driven to his laft Shifts upon it. I will take Pains 
 to fet down out of the Polyglot Bible the Several TrAf- 
 Idttons of this Text. And I will not alter the words tho' 
 it will ttiake them bad Englifb, That you may fee what 
 Ground our Author had for his bold Alteration of this 
 
 - *-;?; - 
 
 is thus. A Child is born to u y A Son 
 
 is given to us. And the Principality Jhall be upon His Shoulder 
 And, His Name fb all be c Ailed Admirable Councellcr y (Jo/ 
 Stroxg, Father of Eternity, Prwce of Peace, to Multiply 
 rrinetf ditty j and to Peace no End. 
 
 The Chaldee Paraphrafe. A Man Child is born to as, a 
 
 Son is : given to us, And fie ftxtt take the LMV< upon Him, 
 
 'that he may keep it, and His Name [hall be called from the 
 
 '.'face of the Admirable' Council, God, A Man enduring to E- 
 
 \,\ WM 1 ''**"~- I O- i > v i.t* O 
 
 terntty,
 
 JH>e fcccnd D IALO GV 8^ . , 63 
 
 ^!* ) * c V>* 
 
 ternity, Christ,, whofe Peace (hall be multiped upon us in His 
 Days. 
 
 Syriac. A Man Child is born to us, a Son is given to us, 
 
 and His Ew fire is made -upon His Shoulder, and His Name 
 
 is called Admiration, and Councellor, The woft Mighty God 
 
 of Ages, The Prince of Peace, of whofe Principality to Plen* 
 
 ty and Peace, there JJjjfl be no Bound. 
 
 Arabic. A Man Child is Born to us, A' Son is given 
 to us, whofe Dominion. is upon. His Shoulders, and His 
 Name {ball be called, the Angel of Great Council, The Ad- 
 mirable Councellor, The Strong God, The Emperor, The 
 Lord of Peace, The Father of the Age to come : For I am 
 to bring Peace to Princes, Peace atid Safety to ibemfelves. 
 His Dominion (hall be mofl Great, and of His Peace there 
 
 ft II 1 f 1 ^V'* . 
 
 {frail be no End. 
 
 Greek, A Young Child is Born to us, and a Son is gi- 
 ven to us, whofe Government is upon His Shoulder, and His 
 Name fhall be. called The Angel of great Council, Wonder- 
 ful CouneeUor, Mighty Lord, Prince of Peace, Father of the 
 Age to come. For I will bring Peace to- Princes and Health 
 to Him. Ms. A* 1 will bring Peace and Health. His Prin- 
 cipality is Great, and of His Peace there is no. Bound. 
 
 Add to this, that thefe Epithets which your Author 
 would not in this Text have Apply'd to Chrlft, but turns 
 the words, that they may belong only to God, as Won-' 
 derful Councellor, Or Angel of Council, The Mighty God y 
 &c? are even by the Ante- Nice ne Fathers apply'd to 
 Ckrift.. Jftft* Mart. Dial, cum Tryph. lud. p. 301. 355. 
 Iren* adverf* H*r. I. 4. c. 66. Tertttll. De Carne Chrifli 
 c. 14. Origen. in Job- p. J2. 42^ Cyprian, adverf* lud, 
 c. 2i. Clement. Alexandr. Pg&dagog. /. i. c. 5. 
 
 I fa. 44. 6. Thus faith the Lord, 1 am the frft and the 
 l*ft- This is apply'd to Ckrif* Rev. i. 8, .1.7. and 21. 
 
 69>7f 
 vcv 
 
 1 
 
 . 
 
 SQC.
 
 4 The Jeeonct D1ALOGV E. 
 
 SOC. My Author fays, That Christ was the 9?ft (that 
 is, the moft Honourable) and Laft, (that is, the moft De- 
 P- ')'" y/*y^ f Men) the firft with Good Men, and the laft 
 with Evil Men. 
 
 CHR. That is, fomething may be faid of every thing. 
 ver, 8. n. But the Firft and the Laft are in this fame Chapter of 
 the Rev. Synonimous with Alpha and Omega, the Begin- 
 ning and the Ending. And God is defcribed verf. 4. thus, 
 He, who is, And was, and is to come. Tertull. (adverf. 
 Prax c. 17. and 18. p. $10; proves the Attributes of 
 God to belong to C,hritt. Omnia Intuit Patris met funt, 
 Cur non et Nominal All that the father hath are mine, 
 Jays Christ, and why not His Names too* Sed et nomina, 
 
 Patris The Attributes of the father, as, God Omni* 
 
 potent, Moft High, The God of Hafts, The Kjng of Ifrael, 
 and Who is, H&c dicimus et in Filium competiffe -Thefe 
 bdwg likewife to the Son, who is, fuo Jure Deus Omni- 
 
 pot ens, qua fermo Dei Omnipotent is i. e. God Almighty 
 
 in His own Right, AS being The WORD of the ALMIGH- 
 TT GOD. And he proves this Text we are upon Rev. 
 i. 8. to belong to Chrifl. I am the Lord, who is, and 
 was and is to come, The Almighty. Cum et Fi/ius. 
 Ontnipotentis tarn Omnipotent fit quam Deus Dei Filius. 
 i. e. Seeing the Son of tht Almighty is Almighty y AS the 
 Son of God is GoL 
 
 Origen (in Job. p. .$. of 2. Tom) obferves that none 
 of the EvAngelijks, did fo manifeftly declare the Divinity 
 of Chrift, dm* rw 0fcnrra, as John did. And among 
 other Texts of St. John which he there reckons up, 
 as proving the Divinity of Chrift, he Quotes Rev. 
 ^ I. S. and 22. i-j. / Am Alpha, and, Omega ; the beginning, 
 and the Ending ; The Firft, And the La&. 
 
 And St. Cyprian does the fame, adverf. lud. c. i. p. 32. 
 and c. 6. p. 3 5. I will not pretend but you may Inter- 
 pret this too; for there are feveral Beginnings, and fe- 
 veral Endings: And / am to Day, WAS Yefterday, and 
 nvtf be to Morrow. And I may take to my felf God's 
 
 Name,
 
 The fecond DIALOGUE. 
 
 Name, J am, and many other things faid of God y I 
 may Accommodate to my felf. But this Appellation is 
 Peculiar to God: You will not find in all the Scripture 
 any Creature call'd in this Stile. Which is the Argu- 
 ment infifted on, viz. That the moft Peculiar Appellati- 
 ons of God are given to Chrift. But we ihall have oc- 
 cafion to fpeak more of this upon another Text by and 
 by. 
 
 (i4J Ifa. 48. 1 6. I have not fpoken in fecret from the 
 Beginning^ from the time that it was, there am L And 
 now the Lord God hath fent me, and His Spirit hath fent 
 me* 
 
 SOC. The I, in this Text, is not Chrift, But the Pro- 
 phet ; for Chrift was not fent at that time. 
 
 C//R. This has been Anjwer'd already, viz.. That 
 the Stile of the Prof bets is to fpeak of Things to 
 come, as Prefent, or even as PaJt. Nay our Au- 
 thor pleads Guilty, and fays, notwithstanding his Ob- 
 jection, that this was fpoke of a Great Prince to 
 come. 
 
 Origen in Joh. Tom. 2. p. $7, fays This Text was 
 meant of Chrift , and thence proves that He was fent 
 both by the father and the Holy Ghoft. And (in Matt. 
 p $2j.) that both were fent by the Father for the Sal- 
 vation of Man. 
 
 SOC. There am 7, that is, I Declare it as dearly as if 
 I were prefent on the place. 
 
 CHR. Can you find in any Language one example 
 of this way of fpeaking? Suppofe I were to 'tell you 
 that fuch a Child was born, and that I was there ; and 
 I fliould fay to you, from the time that it rvas y there am 
 1 : Wou'd you understand me ? Wou'd you not bid me 
 fpeak fome other fort of Language? 
 
 Obferve I pray you, This whole Chapter the 48 
 Ifaah is fpoken in the Per fon of God 9 and not of the 
 Prophet. There God calls upon them. Hearken unto me^ 
 
 K
 
 66 ' fhe fatntf D J 4 Q V E. 
 
 Jacob, I am He y I &W the Firft and the Lafl^ mine Hand 
 hath laid the foundation of the .Earth &c. I 9 evey'Ibave 
 Spoken -I have c Ailed him ; / have brought him^ Come 
 ye near unto me, I hAve not fpoken in Secret from the Be- 
 ginning, &c. as in this Text. It was not Ifaiah who 
 fpoke from the Beginning. There is not an / in all this 
 Chapter, either before, or after this Perfe, but what is 
 exprefly meant of God, and Incommunicable to any Crea- 
 ture. But this fingle / muft be excepted, as before the 
 Anfs and the Thou 1 *, tho' it is fet down continu'dly, and 
 undiftiQguifhed from any of the reft. Nor could this 
 one / in the 16 rerje be a tranfition to another Per fen 
 from all the other IV thro' tfce whole Chapter, with- 
 out a Defign to Deceive the Reader, there being not 
 the leaft Hint, or Intimation, or Poffibility of it, by 
 any Rule or Ufage of Language in the whole World. 
 Nor can Verf. 16. be Explain'd of any other Per/on 
 But of Chrifl, whom The Lord God, an4 his Spirit 
 fent. 
 
 SOC. But this is a proof, fays my Author, That 
 Cbrif was not God^ Bccaufe He was fent by 
 
 . ^pp^e ^ that C^ was lent by 
 
 SOC Yes 
 
 CHR. Why then do you, bring tha^ as an Objedion 
 againft our Opinion, which is in t[ie very Words where- 
 in we Exprefs our Opinion? Does not the Jpoflles 
 Creed fay, That Christ, was Conceived of .the Hol^ 
 QhoHl Much more pay He be/2/ by Him. 
 
 But obferve that in this 7V*/ it is feid of tymf\ 
 . *Jhat the Lord fen^ fi^.^.Here is a plain Diftinaiori 
 put 7 twixt God and His Spirit: Gad fent, and His ^/J 
 rU fent. Whic^ if they be both the fame Perfon, bears 
 this Sen'fe. ; ' / fint^ and 1 ,'fat - 9 that is, it express the 
 Difference 'twixt I a.nd my Jeff. Therefore you muft 
 
 allow
 
 Ue feconcf 
 
 allow God and His Spirit to be two Perfons, Arid that 
 Chrift, being made f7e/; was fent into the WdrlSd by 
 them both. 
 
 (15) There is a moft plain Text whicft He ( emotes 
 next to this Jer. 2f. 5, 6. Twill rat fi unto Ddtrid 'a, Eight*-, .A 
 cas Branch, in His Days Jttdah (hall be Saved, andlfrael 
 fall dwell fofif? ' And, this is the Name wherfy He jhatt 
 be called, The Lord >(HEB. JEHOFAH) our Rigtsteottf- 
 xefs. 
 
 SOC. In tne Hebrew it is, This is the Name which they 
 ftall call the Lord our ^uttiper. That is, in the happy Days 
 of the Branch, the Nation ihall call God their Juftifier, or P* 
 Deliverer. 
 
 CH/?. The very Reading the Context (hews the Ab* 
 furdity of this Tranflation; for it is God who is Spea- 
 king , and Speaking only of the Righteous Branch, 
 defcribing Him, and telling how He mall be called. 
 The Days come, , faith the Lord , that I mil raife unto 
 David a Righteous Branch^ and a, Kjng [hall Reign . 
 In His Days Judah (ball be Saved And this is His 
 Name, whereby He flail bg catted, The Lord, Jehovah, onf 
 Right eoufnefs. 
 
 Hebrew. And this is his Name, which they ftall caM 
 "Him, The 'Lord, our Rightecufnefs. 
 
 Paraph. Chald. this is His Name by which they fhall 
 call Hint. Righteoufnefs fhall be to us front the face of 
 the Lord in His Days. 
 
 Syriac. And this is His Name by which they (hall call 
 Him, The Lord our Righteoufnefs. 
 
 Arabic. And. this is his Name, ty which they (hall caR 
 HiM, the Lord Jofedec, which ftgrtipes the ^uft Lord, or 
 THE JVSTICE OF THE LORD. 
 
 Greek. This is the Ntnte which the Lord {hall .call Him 
 
 "Jofedec. 
 
 J J n* lo 
 
 K 2 Here
 
 The feconcf DIALOGUE. 
 
 Here you fee it is the Lord who calls the Branch by 
 this Name, inftead of the Lord's being call'd fo by 
 others. 
 
 (16.) CHR. Web*, $* 2. Thou Bethlehem, out of thet 
 fh*til come unto me that is to be Ruler in Ifrael; whoje 
 P- ** goings forth have been of old, from Everlajiing, or as it 
 is in the Margin, From the Days of Eternity. 
 
 SOC. By Goings forth is meant only Pedigree ; that is, 
 whofe Pedigree was ancient. 
 
 CHR. This is pretty Arbitrary, and your Author gives 
 no Reafon for it ; but I fuppofe that this is the firft time 
 that Going forth -Jias been taken for a Man's Pedegree^ 
 and I believe he will not do it again. But how do 
 you get over the words from Everlafling ? 
 
 SO C. In the Hebrew it is from Ancient Days, viz. That 
 Chrifl Defcended from the Ancient Stock of David. 
 
 CHR. The Hebrew Phrale is, from the Days of the Age, 
 which, in their Idiom, fignifies Eternity, as alfo in the 
 Greek * T$ a&vofj to Ages, is Englifh'd for Ever 
 and Ever at the End of the Lord"** Prayer ; and you 
 find no fauk with it . For it is the Idiom of the Lan- 
 guage. And it is in the Latin, in Specula Sacutorum. 
 The Chaldee P/traphrafe has both Expreflions together. 
 Whofe Name was Jaid from Eternity, from the Days of the 
 Age. The Syriac, rvhofi Going forth is from the Beginning, 
 from the Eternal Days. The Arabic, whofe Out goings in 
 Ifrael, Are from Everlafting Days. 
 
 And in the Englijb it is plainly told what is there 
 meant by Ancient Days, or of Old, as our Tranflttion is ; 
 not Teflerday, or fmce David, But from Everlafling. 
 Whofe Goings forth have been of Old, from Everlajl- 
 ing. 
 
 Here I might retort upoa our Author^ for his Inter- 
 pretation of If a. 9. 6. Vnto us a, Child is Born. That, 
 fays our Author, is fpoke of in the prefent Tenfe ; There- 
 fore it could aot be Ghrif* who was not then Born. 
 
 By
 
 The jecond DIALOGUE. 6? 
 
 By the fame Rule, Chrijl did exift, before the Prophet 
 Mich* wrote ; for he fpeaks of Chrifl here in the Pre- 
 terperfeft Tevfe. Whofe Goings forth have been of 
 old 
 
 (17.) Zech. 2. 8, 9. Thus faith the Lord of Ho/Is Te 
 
 /ball know that the Lord of Hofts hath fent me. 
 
 SOC Thefe words, Thus faith the Lord of Hofls, 
 are not the words of the Lord of Hofts Himfelf, but of 
 the fecond Angel, who at verf. 3. and 4* fpoke to the 
 firft Angel, and to Z^chariah. 
 
 CHR. Indeed the Angel does declare the word of the 
 Lord, and what the Lord Spoke, but therefore, it tvas 
 the Lord who Spoke it. And this is plain from verf. 5. 
 /, Jaith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of Fire' > "ftee 
 from the North^ faith the Lord, for I have Spread them 
 
 abroad as the Four winds Thus faith the Lord / 
 
 will /bake my Hand upon them- and ye {hall know that 
 
 the Lord of Hojls hath jent me. 
 
 But verf. 10. and n. makes this plain paft Contra- 
 diction. Lo, 1 come and I will dwell in the midft of thee, 
 faith the Lord : And many Nations [hall be Ffoyned to the 
 Lord in that Day, and jball be my People : And I will dwell 
 in the midft of thee', and thou {halt know that the Lord- 
 of Hofls hath fent me unto thee. 
 
 This cannot be apply M to the Angel-, It was the 
 Angel indeed who told us this, who told us that 
 God, faid aB this, but you cannot apply it to the 
 Angel, any more then you can fay that all that is fpoken 
 in the Prophets , was meant of the Prophets, 
 
 SOC. Our Author has faid nothing of this lafir 
 Text. 
 
 (18,) CHR. It was not for his Purpofe. The next Text 
 he Quotes out of Z^chariah is chap. j. 2. The Lord(Heb. P- 6 4 
 Jehovah) faid unto Satan, the Lord (Heb, Jehovah) rebuke, 
 thee. 
 
 soc.
 
 7 o 77*? fecontt D I A L G V E. 
 
 SOC. Our Author fays, that The Lord in the firft 
 clauie is the Angd of the Lord, as appears by verf. i. 
 for there Satan ftands before the Angel. 
 
 CHR. How do you prove the Confequence? That be- 
 caufe SttA* flood before the Angels $ Ifherefore the Lord 
 in the firft Claufe is the Angel ? 
 
 SOC. I confefs the Confequence is not very plain : 
 But he proves it was the Angel, becaufe he Prays to an- 
 other Perfo*. to Rebuke. 
 
 CHR. Do not we fay that Chrifl is another Perfon 
 from the Ftthet ? And that He Pray 9 A to the Father? 
 And we bring this 1 Text as i proof ; which you fay is 
 na Proof, becaufe tfier& is one Perfon Praying to Ano- 
 ther. WheKealif it were not fo^ it could be rio Proof 
 for us But your Author CohfeHes^ That by The Lord 
 in the fr& Claufe, Jehovah is meant according to the 
 Hebrew, which, lie fays, does fo read it as well as in the 
 jecond Claufe. 
 
 SOC. The Name \jebov*hi is given to Angels. asExod. 
 
 3. 2, 4, 6. The Angel of the Lord appeared* And when 
 
 the LORD (Heb. JEHOFAH)fw that he turned aftde- 
 
 God called to him- -and f*id, I am the God of thy Fa* 
 ther ' * f - r 
 
 CHR. We fay that Chritt oft appeared before His ln~ 
 carnation^ as Angels dof who put on Bodies as Men do 
 Cloaths without AfTuming them into their Nature. And 
 when He fo Appear'd, He took to Himfelf the Stile of 
 God 9 which we deny that ever any Angel did. We 
 fay that He was one of the Three which appear'd to 
 Abraham Geri. 18. who ftay'd behind, when the other 
 Two went on to Sodom, who is called there by the Nam6 
 of The Lord. Conftantine built a Church at Mtmre, where 
 _ su/e*. De The Lord did thus appear to Abraham, in Commemora- 
 ?cf5u! 3.' tlon of chri f appearing there, who is cali'd The Lord, 
 and manifefted His Divinity there, accompany'd with 
 Two Angels. And we fay it was He who appeared 
 
 like
 
 The feconcf DIALOGUE. 71 
 
 like an Angel in the Buff}, and therefore is rightly there 
 call'd by the Name Jehovah, and He faid / Am the God. 
 Thus that Text is plain and eafie, in our Senfe; but 
 in yours it is Intricate and Crabbed, and you know not 
 which way to turn it. 
 
 (19.) But I come to the Laft Quotation out of Zjcb. 
 12. 10. They fhall look upon me whom they haye pierced. 
 The fame thing is of Chrifl Rev. 1.7. and Joh. 
 29. 37. 
 
 SOC. As the Jews in the times of the Prophets did 
 (as it were) fierce God with their Sins of feveral Kinds ; 
 So they pierced Him again when they put to Death the 
 Lord Chrift. 
 
 CHR. Both thefe Texts in St. John refer plainly to Chrift -, 
 and fay, that it was He who was Pierced-, you fay it was 
 not He, but God that was Pierced. This is point blank 
 Denying thefe Texts, inftead of Anfoering them. Again conii- 
 der the manner of their Mourning for Him, as one that mour- 
 neth for his only Sen, as the Text {peaks ; They fly all look upo 
 me whom they have Pierced, and they fhall Mourn for Him, 
 as one Mour neth for his only Son, and fhall be in Bitternefs 
 for Him, as om is in Bitternefs for his Firft-born. 
 
 This is a -Sorrow for one that is Dead, and loll from 
 Us. This is laterally Fulfill'd in the Death of Chrifl, 
 and His Side Pierfd with the Spear. This Sorrow has 
 Pity and CompafTion in it, and Trouble and Grief for 
 Another, which cannot be faid of pur Repenting towards 
 God, wherein we are not Griev'd for God, but for our 
 Selves. Can we be faid to Mourn for God, as for an 
 Only Son? 
 
 SOC. But the Words in the Prophet, are not by St. 
 John Interpreted of Chrif, but Accommodated to -(thrift and 
 His Sufferings. 
 
 CHR. This is the old Diftintlion of Accommodated, 
 by which I fappole you mean, That the Text was not 
 fpoke of Chrijt, but only that Chrifs Cafe was like 
 
 that
 
 72 The fecond DIALOGUE. 
 
 that Cafe which the Text fpeaks of; And fo one of thefe 
 Cafes is only Compared or Accommodated to the other. 
 SOC. Yes; That is the meaning of it. 
 CHR. But what if both thefe Texts mean the fame 
 
 SOC. If you can make that Appear, you have done 
 the Bufinefs. 
 
 CHR. What is the meaning of any Saying being PW- 
 jfW? 
 
 SOC. Tliat is, when that is come to pafs, which was 
 meant or intended in luch a Saying. 
 
 CHR. Is the Saying it felf, and the Meaning of that 
 Saying, two different things? 
 
 SOC. No fure. For what is a Saying but the Meaning 
 of it? But what do you mean by all thefe Queftions? 
 
 CHR. If this Text of Zjcb. was fulfill in Cbri/l, 
 then it was meant of Chriji ; and they are not two Caies 
 whereof one may be Accommodated to the other ; but all 
 is one and the felf j awe Cafe. Fulfilling is a Compleating 
 of a thing, .carrying k to its utmoft Meaning and Per- 
 fection. That which is Foretold, is not fulfll'd, if it be 
 not the fame thing which was Foretold : One thing is not 
 Compleated by the Fulfilling of another Thing. 
 
 SOC. This is felf Evident. What dp you inferr ? 
 
 CHR. St. John fays the Scripture in Zjcb. was Ful- 
 ffl'd in the Paffion or Chriji ; Therefore it is more than 
 Accommodated, Compared or made like to it. The Prophet 
 and EvAngetif both fpoke of the yiw* thing. 
 . 19. 36. Tfc*/* things were done fays St. John, That the Scrfp- 
 ture might he Fulfilled - They (ball look on Him whom 
 they Pierced. And you having faid in your firft Anfwer 
 to this Te xt, that the [w] in Zj.ch. (They fealt look upon 
 ME) was meant of God, It follows from St. Johns In- 
 terpreting this as Fulfill "d (and not only Accommodated) 
 in Chriji, that Chrifl was that Me which is in Zjch. and 
 confequently is God. Pray read ver. 56. of the 1 9 &*/. of 
 
 St.
 
 The fecond DIALOGVE. 73 
 
 St. jto Thefe things were done. (viz. Piercing CHRIST 
 with the Spetr, and not Breaking of His Legs, as was 
 done to the Others who were Crucify'd .with Him) 
 that the Scripture fhould be Tulfll'd, a Bone of Him jjjdl 
 not be broken ; And again another Scripture fays, They 
 (baft look on Him whom they Pierced. Here are two Pro- 
 pbefies Quoted by the Apoftle of this Piercing of 'Ckrift* 
 One of them I believe this Author will not fay was only 
 Accommodated to Chrift, viz. The not Breaking of His 
 Legs-, unlefs he thinks they could Break GOD'/ Legs ; 
 and then you may Contrive an Accommodated Senfe even 
 in this too: For Grieving of God may be call'd Breaking 
 of His Bones, as well as Piercing Him. And you muft 
 either Accommodate both, or ## of thefe Texts ; The ^4- 
 foflle puts them together, and Accommod&is them both a- 
 like. And therefore Zech. 12. 10. muft belong as much 
 to Chrift) as Exod. 12. 46. Numb. 9. 12. Or P/4/. 54. 
 20. And it was underftood all along in this Senfe, even 
 before the Council of Nice. 
 
 St. Barnabas, in his Cath. .Epifl. c. 7. p. 45. fpeaking 
 of Cbri/Ps coming to "Judgement ', fays, that when thefjj^; 
 Jews lhall fee him, they will fay, Is not this be whom 1* iu< 
 we heretofore did Crucify. \*yuv ^ r*vf <V 
 
 Now tho' St. Barnibts does not here Quote this Text 
 of Xf^ I2< I0 - yet itis plain that he Refers to it; and 
 means, the Looking ttpon him whom they pierced, to be un- 
 derftood of Chrijl. 
 
 lren<eus Quotes this fame Text -of JZjch. 12. 10: as 
 {poke of Cbrift,. (adverf. Heref. I. 4. c, 66.) and -Cyprian 
 (advevf. 3W. A . av,v<1 20:) ~ ?MuBi*x (adverf. -J^c.-i^. 
 D*:R*firretf.Gvms c. 22. and adverf. Motion. I ^. rf d 
 7.) And generally all the fathers. ^ 
 
 $6c. The more Learned and Judicious Trinitarians 
 cpnfefs tliat the Trinity, aad Divinity ot C/^//, and of the p * ^ 
 pirtf, are joot indeed, taught in the Scriptures of the 
 ddi lo xy L !
 
 The feconct VIA LOGV E. 
 
 i--7- Old Tenement; But are a Revelation made to us in the 
 New, So faith Tert ulli An, adverf. prax, c. 5. 
 
 CHR. TertuUian fays not a word like it in that place. 
 It is but feldom this Hiftorian Quotes 'Book of Chapter 
 of any Author. And you may fee here a good Reafon 
 for it. But it was an unlucky or rather happy Erratum 
 of the Author or Pt -inter , (if you make the right ufe of 
 it) to lead the Reader to this place of Tertuttian, for he 
 Difcourfes there of the Trinity fo very Learnedly as 
 might have inftru&ed your Author and cur'd him of his 
 Miftakes about the Trinity, if he had minded it. 
 
 Tertvllian is there Difputing againft thefe Hereticks 
 who think that the 
 
 Teftimony N UMBER * *nd DISPOSITION 
 
 f tlje TRINITY * DIVISION 
 
 Ct'^J UNITY; #? /0 UNITY TW; quando Unitas ex ip- 
 
 jnrwW /^ TRINITY o*/ rf" it ^met derivans Trimtatern, 
 
 r ;r j /z > / / r non deftruatur ab ilia, fed 
 
 Jelf, ts not dejlrofdby it, but ts jup- adminiftretur. ItaqueDuos 
 
 ported. Therefore they bra?? that we " Tres jam jaftitant a nobis 
 TW/O ay THRPF hat P r ^icari, fe vero Unius Dei 
 A WU or ItllS.tlil, Wf Cultores prafumunt. Quafi 
 
 orjbtp ONE G0. LJU nonecU^/r^irrationabili- 
 
 UNITY, hinv unreafonably terCoiie^a Here/in faciat; 
 .urtj/.j i TT r set TtiKItAS* ratjonalitei: 
 
 Cottetted, did .not make Herejy, and expenfa, veritatem Cdnftit- 
 
 tbe TRINITY being ratwntllj nat. 
 weighed did not eflablifb the Truth. * 
 
 /" 
 
 Thjefe are the Words of Tertullinn, and I would de- 
 fire you to confider two things in them. Firft that he 
 fays the Vnity does deduce the Trinity out of it felf. 
 This fhews the Trinity to be even natural to the Uni- 
 ty ; and therefore that there could not be an Unity ^ iin* 
 lefs there were a Trinity. And to explain this, he fays 
 after, that the Unity is to be Collected. Unites Co/beta: 
 This is a Great Confirmation to whac we have already 
 Difcours'd of the Natural Tfoitj of the Per/ws of God. 
 
 That
 
 The feconcf DIALOG V E. 
 
 That in every Vnity there muft be feveral things to 
 be V fitted : Thus the Unity of a Body, is an TJnion of 
 Parts: The Itoww of a ?#/, is the Vion of P^- 
 ///f/w ; and the 1)mon of G0*f, is the 11 mw of Perfons. 
 The very word Vnion, implies Diverpty ; for a thing 
 cannot be United to its felf. Even vk.Self-Refleftion, 
 the fame &?/ muft be confidered as ^g<?#/ and Patievt, 
 as when / love my Self. And what is but a Shadow, a Diver- 
 fity of Faculties in ?#4# (without which there could be no 
 Self-Reflexion) muft be Perfonal in God (without Which 
 Ge*? could not know or love Himfelf; and fo could not 
 be God ) Therefore, as Tertu!lta fays, The Vmty not be- 
 ing reafonably Collected, makes an Herefe in theC^r//?/4 
 F^iV^. Indeed your 1>#/Vj is not Collected at all, or put 
 together: it is made up of Nothing, or (which is the 
 fame) it is the -Vnion of a thing with it felf, a lenity with- 
 out any Vffiov,OT an Vnion where nothing is Viyteffci 
 On the Contrary, our Dodrin of the Trinity, being Rq. 
 tion*Uy .wigk'dy and Conflder'd, does JLftMfb the Truth-, 
 tbat is, gives the only True and Rational account of the 
 Vnity of God. And it will follow from bence, that we 
 deferve the Name of Vnitarians much more truly than 
 you do 
 ours is 
 
 soc. 
 
 place of Tenullian. 
 
 CHR. Yet it has not been wholly improper to our 
 Subjea as you have fccn. 
 
 &S0C. I am fure, that is not what he intended. Bi 
 what fay you to Two or Three other Authors he Quotes 
 
 1 L f ' 1 1 
 
 in the- fame place ? 
 
 CHR. I have them not at hand. And I think it 
 not worth the while to fearch for them ; becaufe if 
 TertullUn and Twenty Others faid what he alledges, it 
 would make nothing for his caufe. And Secoffdfy >, you 
 
 1 L 2 

 
 7 6 The feconcl DIALOGUE. ^ 
 
 may reafonably fuppofe, that he deals with the Oihers 
 as he has done with TertuUjan in this Quotation. : . 
 
 SOC. Why do you fay it would make nothing for 
 
 his Caufe, if Tertullian or Others faid what he al- 
 
 ledges? V *O -iJ 
 
 An^/nvr CHR. r Becaufe I,. will, allow, in one fenfe, That the 1 
 
 torh ?, ^ Trinity and Divinity of Chrift are not taught in the 
 
 en wn> the ~. . ' _ - / . _ , .9 
 
 s not 
 
 _ . _ , . 
 
 T.ejtament, that is io clearly, as that, it the New 
 morecieany Teftament had not apply'd to CV//? the r^oc/j which 
 rhe0/J7e<L t ^ ie ^ Teftttmtnt makes Incommunicable to any but to 
 . G^, we had not of our own Heads, thought them 
 Communicable to Chrifl. But it is a Demon jtro.tion .that 
 the fathers- did think the Trinity, and Divinity of Cr//2 
 to be Cbntain'd in the 0/af TefttmeHt ; becaufe one of 
 their Arguments' for the Divinity of C^v/2 is by Com- 
 paring the Prdpbejies of Him in the O/^ Teftament, with 
 the Completion of them in ( the AVw : And from the New 
 Te fitment applying to Him^ the Incommunicable Attributes 
 of God, which the Old Tesiament did appropriate to 
 Christ. And you have feen the Fathers* even before Afa* 
 
 J --;%/* " ' 
 
 infift all along upon the 0/^f Tettament proofs, both for 
 the Trinity and Divinity of Chrift: So that this is a falfe 
 and malicious Afperfion your Author cafts upon them, 
 where he weakly infinuates, that they give up the Old 
 Teftament phrates, becaufe ' thefe of the Gofpel are more 
 full : Or even that the Old Teftament Proofs had not been 
 clearly underftood but for the New, which as I faid, if 
 Granted, makes nothing at all to his Caufe. But he has 
 not prov'd even that. Tnaj^he may make out his Chara&er, 
 to have 'prov'd no one thing that he has attempted. 
 P. 68. $OC. But he asks p. 68. if the Trinity were taught 
 in the Old Teftam,ent, how came the 'Jewtfh Church m all 
 Ages to be fo wholly Ignorant ,of it, that ( as all Con- 
 fefs ) they had not the leaft Sufpicion, that God is more 
 than One Perfon ?' And if in this they had Err'd, 'tis not 
 to be douted our Saviour' would have reproved their He- 
 
 reps
 
 The feconct DIALOGUE. 77 
 
 refe and Carefully fet them right, as he did in the matter 
 of the Refurretfie*. 
 
 CHR. His Confident Averting is the beft part of his 
 Arguments. He fays, that ( all Confefs ) the Jew had not 
 the lead Sufpicion of the Trinity. The Contrary to which 
 you have plainly feen. 
 
 SOC. But then why did not Christ explain the Trinity 
 more fully to them, and fet them right in This, as well 
 as in the Re fur reft ion ? 
 
 CHR. He did fo, as is evident from the Clear Reve- 
 lation of the Trinity in the Nzw Testament ; but they re- 
 main'd Ignorant in this, as in other things which were 
 as clearly reveal'd ; as in the true Office of the Meffiab, His 
 Paffion, Refurretfion &c. Luk. 18. 31. ad. 35. Nay the 
 very Apo files remain'd all ChriJPs Life-time Ignorant of the 
 true meaning of His coming into the World, of His De^th^ 
 Refurrettion, &c. Ad. i. 6. notwithftanding all the clear 
 Revelations he made to them of it before His Death. 
 
 SOC. The Chief of your Proofs for the Trinity are in 
 the New Teftament. Therefor in our next Difcottrfe let 
 us Confider thtfe, at leaft the Principal of them.
 
 V-T * * vj tf vj a K i vi 
 
 v// 03 >(:: jm,J 3(1 ! .$u%\:i sflricnoi; 1 M; 
 
 ;'.". :! 1 I " 
 
 v : :W'/CT ?ili ni^lq/o v-V\" J 
 '.v. T i's ^vVx rii-jffgxi me 
 
 ^i *' H \ * ' *^ "' IT " 
 
 *!? v j^i i*>vi *. * v n j , 
 
 ? vjd'i "tid j;\wnp*V;.uSJ.-: . i.m u. 
 si97/ ri-Jdv.' ggniffj isrfe^ n; 
 c;H f 4a^lfx 3fii V^a^. ... 
 
 * ' ' - T * J s* 
 
 j 3a^-oo r 
 t th:.vd *iH . 
 
 . ' 
 
 nx ;/3S ^VwV^Y 
 "?' i j\ ;'..'!' 

 
 
 H E 
 
 THIRD DIALOGUE. 
 
 L 'i ; n&l^.oliwi^fljo 3i w gaiM'^fit 40. 
 
 1 ' ' ' "1/4 % i' J 
 
 )ib > y&r<>3 
 
 <\CL' "tt ^,!- : '\_ 'Sri ft 
 
 of the NEW.TESTAMENT. 
 
 CHRISTIAN. V Am now come to my Proofs out 
 
 of the New Ttftdment. And I defire 
 I you to Confider. 
 
 ^- (i.) A/4^. 12. 31. BUfpbetnj againft' 
 the Holy Gkoft (hall not be jorgiven. 
 
 3i biOC. The Holy Gbott is not, in this Text, a P erfon y Brie 
 ,cra Go^, but meerly the Power of God. ? 7^ 
 
 ; CH. Not in this Text ? But in other Texts it muft 
 be fomething Diftintt from G^. Which you aflert, p. ij 
 and p. 125. upon 2 C0r. 13. 14. and in feveral other pla- 
 ces. So that you alter the Notion of the Holy Ghoft ac- 
 cording to the Texts. Which is wifely done, for every 
 Text will not fit your way. 
 
 SOC. But now we muft take it only for the Power of />y;/. 
 God, which is the fame with God, as 'tis faid of Mofes, 33 
 ffoj provoked his Spirit, the Undoubted meaning is, They 
 provoked Him. So alfo Grieve not the Holy Spirit of ^. 
 God, is aa Hebraifm for Grieve not G0d j As our Au- 
 tfar ^explains it p. 52. upon Pfal. 159. 7,3
 
 CHR. Then this is the meaning 'you have 'put upon 
 this Text, That Sins againft Ged are to be forgiven, 
 but Sins Againft His Spirit are not to be forgiven. 
 Now apply this to the Parallel you have brought. 
 And fay that a Sin againft Mofes is to be forgiven ; but 
 againft the Spirit of Mofes is not to be forgiven: Or, 
 which is the fame, That a Sin againft Mofes is to be for- 
 given ; but a Sin againft Mojes is not to be forgiven. 
 For you know Mofes and His Spirit are the. fame. 
 
 SOC. You have proposed the Difficulty, pray Anfwer 
 it. 
 
 CHR. The Spirit of Mofes is not a Perfon, viz. it is 
 not Subfifting i>y it (elf: Therefore we cannot Predicate, 
 or Affirm any thing of it otherwife than of Mofes, and it 
 would be the fame abfurdity to fay any thing of the Spirit 
 of God, otherwife than of God, if the Spirit were not a Per- 
 Jb0 9 that is, Subfifting by it felf. 
 
 SO-C. I will Confider of this. Go to Another Text. 
 
 2fi,CffR. t $fat. .#8. 19. Baptizing them in the Name 
 [ te Father^ and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghofl. 
 StiC. Baptizing unto fuch a one, is fometimes meant 
 77, >of Baptizing in His Name, as 'Rom. 6. -$. as many of you 
 AS have been Baptize* into Jefus Chri/t-* by which is 
 meant, being Baptized in His Nawe. And we find it 
 faid, That our Fathers were Baptized unto Mofes ^ i. Cor. 
 ip. 2- and unto^john's Raptifw^ Aft. 19.: 5. and therefore 
 we may fuppofe tney were Baptized in. their Names.- AnH 
 fo being Baptized in the Name, of fuch a one, is not a 
 Proof that He t ^s God. " fef fj i^| B ^0*7 ji 
 
 CHR. This>;jMr.lta^ Expofuion of this Text Re- 
 printed, 1691. in* that Volume , of Socinian Traces intit ti- 
 led The .Faith, of -one jGW, &c,i;p; S. And not to infift 
 upon the Diflerence of being Baptized Unto, and Into 
 fuch a one, which is Confiderable. I Anfwer, That be- 
 ing Baptiz'd ia jhe iffame of- fuch a one, doY indode,be- 
 _ing .".Baptiz'd,^/^.:^; But nPt on ithev Contrary; for 
 
 \fl noqy .s? .q 3i ^n'falqx^ being
 
 The third DIALOGUE. 3 
 
 being Baptiz'd Vato fueh A one, do's not include, being 
 Baptized /;* his Name. Unto fucb a one, may mean, no 
 more than being Baptiz'd by his Minijlery. But being 
 Baptiz'd, in ones Name, is owning him the Author of my 
 Religion \ and, as fucb, a Dedicating and Devoting my felf 
 to him; Which is not Lawful to do to any Crettxre, be- 
 caufe it is the Higheft fort of Worfkip that can be. ; / 
 thank God I Baptized none of 'you , fays St. Paul, But CrJf* 
 pas and Gains,leaft any fljould fay that I had Baptized IN 
 MY OWN NAME. And again he Argues with them. 
 Is Christ Divided ? WAS Paul Crucify* d for you ? Or were 
 ^Bafti^ed JN ,THE NAME OF. PAUL? Thefe are lt Cor> u 
 things which No Apoftle muft Arrogate to himfelf, and:*. ver!\3* 
 there is not an Inftance in all the Scripture of any that 
 were Baptized in the Name of any Creature ; for that 
 would be to be Baptiz'd into the Faith and Worfhip of 
 Creatures, which is Idolatry : And aflerted, in terminis 
 in Bidlis Confeffion of faith, Printed in the above faid 
 Volume of Socmiaa Trars. p- 4. where Artie. 2. and 
 p. 8. Artie. 5. tie aflferts Chrift to have No other th,m an 
 Human Nature, and yet, in this very. Nature to be not 
 
 only a Per/on -but alfo our Lord, yea, our God and 
 
 the Object of our ' Faith and lYorflyip. Which is as Grofs 
 Idolatry as ever was own'd by the Heathen-, and a 
 Greater 'Contradiction than any that is Charg'd upon the 
 Doftrine of the Holy Trinity. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus 
 in his Expoptio Fidei, p. 100. fays, that from the words 
 of this Text, non poteft Contradict there can be no 
 Difpute, but the Father, Son and Holy. Ghoft have Com- 
 munion and Unity, according to which, they are neither 
 Three Divinities, nor Three Dominations, nor Three Ho- 
 Ifs, but their Three Perfons remaining, the Ionian of 
 all the Three is moll firmly to be Confeft. As the Fa- 
 ther fends the Son, and the Son fends the Holy Ghoftt 
 But one Perfon never fends it felf, for none will fay that 
 the Father is Incarnat, &c. Our Authors Interpretation 
 
 B of 
 
 7
 
 The third DIALOGUE. 
 
 of this Text is the fame which Cyprian fo feverely re- 
 prehends in Lucian, who, when Our Lord Commanded 
 all Nations to be Baptized in the Name of the Father, 
 Son> and Holy Gboft, and Remiffion of Sins to be given 
 in Baptifw, he, being ignorant of the Command and 
 the Law, Commands Peace to be given, and Sins to be 
 
 remitted in the Name of Paul- wherein he did not 
 
 Confider at all, that it is not the Martyrs who made 
 the Gofpel, but they are made Martyrs by the Go/pel. 
 Cyprian Epitf. 18. p. $?. and TLpi/l. 73. lubaiano p. 200. 
 he fays this form of Baptifm in the Name of the Fa- 
 ther Son and Holy Ghoft Inpnuat Trinitatem, cujus SV- 
 cramento Gentes Bapttzantur. It does injtnuat the Trinity 
 into the Sacrament of which the Nations are Baptized. 
 And Afterward in the fame Epitt* p. 206. he fays, that 
 Chrifl Commands all Nations to be Baptized in plena, 
 & adunata Trinitate, in the FULL and UNITED TRI- 
 NITY. 
 
 SOC. The Def. of the Hi ft. c. 7. p. j8. fays, that the 
 Jems were Baptized in the Name of Mofes, and, that it is 
 tUin^ the Apoftle teUs the Corinthians, that as they were Bap- 
 tized in the Name of Jefas So the Fathers had been Bap. 
 
 tized in the Name of Mofes. 
 
 CHR. If we had faid any thing like this, I fhould 
 have expefted fome of his ufual Complements, Impudent, 
 want of Common Senfe, &c. To bring no Argument but 
 to cry Magifterially, It is plain, when it is plaioly other- 
 wife! However we will give him to the next Edition, 
 to find the place where St. Paul tells the Corinthians^ 
 that -the Fathers were Baptized in the Name of Mofes; 
 
 SOC. But he finds fome places of Scripture where Crea- 
 ture? are join'd with God as Exod. 14. 31. The People 
 feared the Lord -and believed the Lord and his Servant 
 Mofes, 2 Tim. 5. 21. 1 charge Thee before God, and the 
 Lord Jefvs ChriSl, and the Eleft Angels^ that thou obferve 
 theft things &c. 
 
 CHR.
 
 The third D I A L G V E. 
 CHR. What does he make of this? 
 SOC. If Mojes and Angels be join'd with God in acts 
 of Faith and ObteftAtioK^ &c. Why not the son and Spi- 
 rif in Bapttfai tho' neither of them is God Himlelf ? 
 
 CHR. Sure He did not ask this Queftion to be in- 
 form'd ; for who is it does not fee the Difference ? To be 
 Baptized in the Name of a Perfon, is, giving up my 
 Name to him. Dedicating my felf to him, making my fetf 
 his, giving him the Title to me, to Difyofe of me at his 
 pleafure ; It is a Form of Initiating me into his Religion, 
 owning him as the father and Author of the Religion I 
 profefs. And this it is not lawful to do to any Creature ? 
 There's none whom we muft thus call our Father upon 
 Earth, whom we muft join with God, in this Solemn 
 acl of Dedicating our felves unto God : for we are wholly 
 Gotfs, and he muft have no (barer in the PofTeffion of 
 us: In this we muft join none with him. But there 
 are many things wherein it is no harm to join Creatures 
 with God, as in acts of Qbteflation, as your Author calls 
 it, invoking God and Man to wicnefs. To believe what 
 God fays, and what Man fays, &c. This is fo obvious 
 I will infift no more upon it. 
 
 SOC.-My Author Quotes i Or. i. 14. 15. / thank 
 God fays St. Paul, I Baptized none of you but Crifpus and 
 Gains ; leaft any fhould fay that I bad Baptized in my own 
 Name. He plainly insinuates, fays my Author, that a 
 meer Man may Baptize in bis own Name. 
 
 This is fuch an Insinuation^ as, I believe, none but 
 your Author could fee. If any Man might do it, I 
 know none had better pretence than St. Paul. But how 
 his Renouncing it, fhould be a plain Infinuation that he 
 might do it, is left to the Author to Explain ; till when 
 I muft ftill believe, and moft Men in the World with 
 me, that thefe words of St Paul rather imply that he 
 had not power to Baptize in hts own Name, and if not 
 he, then I think, no body elfe had that Power. 
 
 B 2 SOC.
 
 The third DIALOGUE. 
 
 SOC. My Author ftill infifts, that to be Baptized tmto 
 Mofes, is the fame with being Baptized in the Name of 
 Mofes, becaufe being Baptiz'd unto Chrift, and in the 
 Name of Chrift, are the lame. 
 
 CHR. That has been Anfwer'd already, viz,. The 
 Greater (which is, being Baptiz'd in the Name of a Perfori) 
 includes the Lejfer (which is, being Baptiz'd unto one, 
 which may mean no more than by his Miniftry) But 
 on the Contrary, the Leffer cannot include the Greater. 
 Therefore tho' being Baptiz'd unto Chrift, and in the 
 Name of Chrift, mean the fame thing, becaufe the Greater 
 includes the Leffer \ yet being Baptiz'd unto Mofes and 
 in the Name of JMofes, are not the fame, becaufe the Lefs 
 does not include the Greater. 
 
 SOC. He ftill infifts that if to be Baptiz'd into Chrifi> s 
 Baptifm) is all one with being Baptiz'd in the Name of 
 Chrift, then he fays, that to be Baptiz'd into JohnV 
 Baptifm, muft alfo fignify .40 be .Baptiz'd in the Name of 
 John. And that whoever .profefs'd in his Baptifm to 
 follow the Do&rin which John taught, might be faid to 
 be Baptiz'd in the Name of John. 
 
 CHR. -To be Baptiz'd into Chrifi's Baptijm is afl one 
 with being Baptiz'd in the Name of Chrift. Becaufe the 
 Form of His Baptifm was in His own Name, together 
 with that of the Father, and the Hoi) Ghoft. But to be 
 Baptiz'd into JohnV Baptifm, was not to be Baptiz'd 
 in the Name of John, unlefs John did Baptize in his own 
 Name. Which it is Evident he did not. For his Bap- 
 tifm had Relation and Refer'd to Chrift who was to 
 come after him. As it is faid, Act. 19. 4. John verity 
 Baptized with the Baptifm of Repentance, faying unto the 
 People, That thej fhou d Bel/eve in Him who Ibotfd come 
 after him ; that is, in Chrift Jefus. 
 
 But what does he fay to the Objection of being Bap- 
 tiz'd into the Name of an Inspiration, which is not a 
 Perfon ? 
 
 soc.
 
 Tie third DIALOG V . 
 
 SOC. He fays (ending of pag. 39. and beginning of p. 
 40.) that he fees no Abfurdity in being Baptized infc* 
 the Profeflion of a Doftrine, which came Originally from 
 God the Father > is reveaPd by His $on y and is confirmed 
 by the Power or S fir it of God. ,H 
 
 CHR. That is to fay, he is refolv'd not to Anfiver, 
 ask him as often as you will. For the Qutflion is/not 
 of being Baptiz'd into the Prof effort of A Doctritt, for 
 all are oblig'd by,tfiejr Baptifm to profefs, the Docirin^^ 
 that Pwfon in whofe' Name they are Baptized. Thu* 
 Chriftidvs are oblig'd by their Baptifm to , profefs the 
 Doctriv taught by Chrift^ But they are not Baptiz'd m 
 the Name of that Dcflrin, or of any Article of it, that 
 wouM be Nonfenfe : For every Baptifw is in the Name 
 of fome Perfom As no Man is Ittifted in the Name of 
 a Caufe, but in the Name of fome Perfon for whofe 
 Caufe he Fights. And the Caufe is proclaim'd in Nam* 
 of the Perfbtt. Thus we read Luk. 24. 47. That Re- 
 feta?jce and Remijfion of Sins . fljouU be Preached in 
 CHRIST'S Name. This was never faid of any Prophet,. 
 4poflle 9 or .other Mini ft er of the Gojpel. lhat is more 
 than belongs to the Office of a bare Servant, Minifter, ot 
 Herauld: They muft not proclaim .in their own Names. 
 
 The like reafon will Explain Lak.-.ij. 5, The . Jpoft/es- 
 faid unto the Lord increaje our Faith'- iWhich y.pur Author 
 would have to mean no. more than to Pray for them. But 
 he will not find in Scripture an Example of requefting 
 any Mans Prayers in fuch a Form, as to defire them to- 
 Bejlow upon us any Spiritual Grace. 
 
 ($.) The next Text we fliou'd Confider is Joh. i. i^ 
 In. the beginning was the Word,, &c. Of which we have 
 before Difcours'd at large. I only here Mark it, in its 
 Order. And fo go to the next. 
 
 (4.) John. 2. 19. 21. Defroy this Temple ^ and in Three* 
 
 Days I witt raife it up. --tie fpake of the Temple of his 
 
 Body. 
 
 SOC.
 
 8 The third DIALOGUE. 
 
 J/.P. Sy. SOC. Chrift raifed His Body by a Power Communica- 
 ted to Him by the fatheri 
 
 CHR. But bad He that Power when He was Dead? 
 How ean a Dead man aft ? Which way fhall he be fet 
 about the Raifing of Himfelf. 
 
 SOC. Indeed I think we muft have him Alive before 
 he can raife Himfelf. Let us go on to Verf. 25. 
 
 CHR. We will let that alone till^we come to Rom. 
 v 1 6. for the fame Anfwer will fefve both. But now 
 to prove that Chip had a Being before he was born of 
 the Virgin, Read Joh. j. 13. No man hath afcended up to 
 Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven ; even the 
 Son of Man that is in Heaven. 
 
 SOC. He that came down from Heaven. That is, fays 
 my Author, He that is fent to ydu as the Meffenger of 
 tieaven, or of God. And even the Son of Man that is in 
 Heaven , that is, whofe Mediation, or Convention is in 
 Heaven : But our Author quits this Anfwer ; and fays that 
 the Socinians do (generally) underftand this Text Lite- 
 rally, and fay, that 'tis here intimated, that before our 
 Lord enterM upon His Office of Me/fits, He was taken 
 up to Heaven, to be Inftrutfed in the Mind and Will 
 of God (as Mofes was into the Mount. Exod. 24. i. 2. 
 12.) and from thence Defcended to execute this Office and 
 Declare the faid will of God. The fame thing, they fay, 
 is alfo hinted Job. 6. 38. 46, fi. 62. John 8. 40. 
 
 CHR. Does any of thefe places fay that Chrift was 
 ttken up to Heavenl 
 
 SOC. No. But that He came down from Hetven, and 
 was in Heaven. 
 
 CHR. Will this prove that He was uken up to be 
 Inftructed after His Incarnation ? We fay He was there 
 before, and came down. You, without any Authority in 
 the World, wifl have this to be a taking of Him up 
 after His Birth, of which there is not the leaft hint in 
 all the Bible t no, nor any w,here elfe. Tour Author does 
 
 "Qt
 
 The third DIALOG VE. 
 
 not fo much as pretend to any fort of Proof > So that 
 we muft take it for a Revelation of His own. That 
 is, for an abfolute Sign of a baftTd Caufe, and the ut- 
 moft Obftinacy to refift all Convi&ion. If he had found 
 us Build any thing upon fuch a Bottom as this, I'm 
 fure he would Perfecute us fufficiently. They may as 
 well take upon them to invent a New Bible^ as invent 
 Stories on purpofe to ground upon them ftrange Inter* 
 frettttions of the Texts of the Bible. 
 
 But let me ask you, upon his own Principles, what 
 need was there for Chr ill's being taken up to Heaven to 
 be Inftructcd in the Will of God? He confefles that the 
 Word of God, which is His whole Wifdom and Power, 
 abode on Chrift, and Infyir'd Him, even without Meafure, 
 fo as that it was even Incarnate and made Flefb in Him, p ' 
 and fpoken of as one Perfon with him, and He with 
 Him. And was not this fufficient to fhew Him the 
 Will of God I What cou'd He wen add to this? He 
 could have but the fame in Heaven. But if Chrift^s A* 
 fcenfion into Heaven may be folv'd, by my fancying that 
 He might be taken up at this or that time, and let down 
 again, I may Deny what all Chriftians mean by His 
 Afanfon\ and every other Article of the Creed by the 
 fame Liberty. But let us go on. 
 
 (6.) How do you Anfwer Joh.%. 58. Before Abraham 
 was, 1 am ? ##* P 94- 
 
 SOC. That is, before Abraham was it was Decreed that 
 Chrift fhoutd come. 
 
 CHR. Why was not that expreft in the Text? You 
 will Grant that the Words will not bear it. Never 
 Man expreft himfelf at this Rate : And the Scripture is 
 to be underftood, like other Writings^ by the common 
 life of words: Elfe it was not meant to be underftood. 
 
 SOC. He produces other Texts to Countenance his 
 
 Interpretation of this, i Pet. i. 20. Who was fore* 
 
 ordained from the Yountkntion of the World* 
 
 CNR.
 
 io The third DIALOGVE. 
 
 CHR. That is clearly expreft, that He was fur*> 
 ordain . 
 
 SOC. Rev. 1 3 \S. The Lamb Jliin from the FouxdaHw 
 of the World. 
 
 CHR. Thefe are words of the Revelation, which fpeaks 
 in the higheft ftrain of Prophefy, and that as we have ob- 
 ferv'd, fpeaks of things to come, as Prefent, or Paft. 
 
 And this cou'd not be mifunderftobd, for none ever 
 faid that Chrif was Slain, before the time, that He was 
 Slain. And therefore this could not be meant but only 
 of the Decree ; qr in Relation to God> to whom all things 
 are P^refent^ in which refpeft the Lamb was Slain from 
 all Eternity. - \\ 
 
 And betides you cannot reconcile this Anfwer of ChrijPs 
 to common truth as you explain it. 
 
 The Queftion was, whether Jefus or Abraham were 
 Firft. The. ., ^ews faid, unto Him, Thou art not Fifty Tears 
 OU, and haft Thou feen Abraham ? 
 
 Jefus Anfwered, that He was before Abraham , if He 
 meant in Decree only, it was nq Anfoer to their Quefti- 
 OD : For fo I am before Abraham, that is, before Abra- 
 ham was Eorn^ it was Decreed that I "fliau'd be: And 
 you wouM not make our Saviour anfw.er Sophifticallyt 
 
 Irtn. adverf. Her. 1. 4. c. 27. p. j4<$. underUands this 
 Text [before Abraham WAS, V Am~\ of Chr ill's reall 
 
 1- C ' Al T * 
 
 ly 
 
 1- C ' Al T * 
 
 before Abraham. 
 
 But the next place, why fhou'd the Jws go to Stone 
 Him for this Anfwer? There was no fort of Difficulty 
 in it, as you explain it. 
 
 SOC. The Jews mifunderftood it. 
 
 CHR. Then you muft fuppofe Ckrifl fpoke with a 
 Mental Refirvation, on purpofe that they might miftake. 
 
 SOC. Yes, as Luk 8. 10. He fjpake in Parables, th&s 
 feeing they might not fee , &c. 
 
 CHR.
 
 The third DIAL >0 V E. 1 1 
 
 . This is not to be underftood as if Chrifi fpoke 
 in Parables, on purpofe to Hinder them from believing': 
 On the contrary, Parables do naturally prompt Men to 
 Inquire and Learn, the meaning of- them, and therefore 
 are the moft effe&ual method of Inftrutting : That is, to 
 Men apt and forward to .Learn. But otherwife they are 
 indeed infipid, and very ineffe&ual. But that is from 
 the fault of the Hearer, who will not be at pains to in- 
 quire. Therefore our Saviour fo often repeats, He that 
 
 hath Ears to hear let him hear -and take heed how ye 
 
 hear : for he that hath, to him /ball be given^ and he that 
 hath not) from him (hall be taken^ wen that which he hath. 
 That is, a Docible Temper will Learn ftill more. On 
 the contrary, Men who are Carelefs and Stiipid, grow 
 backward, and loofe what Reafon they had. 
 
 And what our Saviour fays of feeing they might not 
 fee,&c. it was only as applying to them the Prophfjj which 
 was of their H*rdri*d and Indocible Temper, which is evi- 
 dent from the parallel Place. Mat. i j. 14. In them is fat- 
 filled the Prophefte of Ifaias, which faith^ by hearing ye {hatt 
 hear. And, /hall not underftand, and feeing ye [hall fee And 
 (ball not Perceive ; for this Peoples heart is waxed grofs^ and 
 their Ears are dull of Hearing, and their Eyes are clo/ed, 
 left at any time they (hould fee with their Eyes, And hear 
 with their Ears^ and {hould understand with their hearty and 
 '(hould be Converted, and I Jhould Heal them. 
 
 You will not fay that it was the Prophefy which bar- 
 
 dtid thefe Men. But God fore-fan their hardnefs, and 
 
 foretold it by the Prophet, S. Matthew c. i. 22.fpeaking of 
 
 the Birth of Chrift, fays, all this was done that it might be 
 
 fulfll'd which was fpoken by the Prophet, fay ing. Behold * 
 
 Virgin {hall be with Child, &c. Do you think that the 
 
 End of Christ's coming into the World, was only that 
 
 He might not make ifaiah a Lyar, who wrote this Pro- 
 
 phefy ? Or that this Prophefy was the Caufe of ChrifPs 
 
 Birth, fo that it had not otherwife come to pafs, if this Pro 
 
 C phefy
 
 The tUrd DIALOGVE, 
 
 phefy had not been made? Ther is the fame reafon, for 
 the fame manner of Exprefiion, in the fame EvAngeliH. 
 c 13. 14. and Quoting another Prophefy of the fame 
 Prophet 1/aiah. 
 
 But how different a Cafe is this from our Saviours 
 anfwering a plain and dired Qiiettion of the Jews ? Are 
 you older than fuch a Man, or not ? To make Him de- 
 ceive them on pur pofe, is a hard Interpretation ; And 
 when He faw them in an Error, and brought into it, 
 by His improper and unknown way of Speaking ; that 
 He IhouM leave them in that Error, into which He had 
 viiibly led them, and not , vouchfafe one word to unde- 
 ceive them; not only at that time, but never after in his 
 whole Life: On the Contrary, that all He faid fhou'd 
 be conftantly in this Strain, fpeaking fuch ftrange things 
 of Himfelf, and in words applicable to no other Perfon 
 in the World. I fay this wou'd give Him more the 
 Charaler of an Impotfor and a Deceiver, as they calPd 
 Him, then of a Teacher come from God to tell us the 
 Truth. 
 
 (?) Job. 10 30. Chrift fays, / and the Father are One. 
 - $9ft ^ Ot one God, But as Friends are faid to be One. 
 
 CHR. TertuRian(De Oratione c. 2. p. 130) Proves that 
 we pray to the Son, when we pray to the Father, be. 
 caufe Ckrift fays, / and the Father are One. In Patre 
 Filius invocatur ; Ego enim, inquit, & Pater Vnum Sumus -. 
 
 And (adverf. Prax. c. 8. p. 504.) Sermo in Patre femper . 
 
 The Word y fays he, was a/ways in the Father^ as Chrift 
 fays, / am in the Father, and always with God, as it is 
 written, And, the Word, was with God. And never fepara- 
 ted from the Father, or other from the Father, Becaufe 
 1 and the Father are One. (Ibid c. 22. p. 515) And by 
 this faying he (hews them to be Two, quos aquat &jun- 
 git, whom He joins, and makes Equal. But all this is 
 to be underftood, Vt Duo tamen crederentur in una Virtute. 
 That they be believed to be TWO in ONE AND the fame 
 
 Power - 
 
 7
 
 Ue third DIALOGUE. 13 
 
 Poiver ; Eecaufe otherwife tbe Son cannot be believed, unless 
 Two be Eelietfd, Thefe are the words of Tertultian. 
 
 S. Cyprian (de Vnit. EccU. p. 109) Quotes this Text 
 as proving the Natural Union of the Father and the Soft. 
 For he joins it in the fame Proof with i. Joh. >f. 7. 
 which is the moft exprefs for proving the lenity of the 
 Trinity. Die it Dominus, Ego & Pater unum fumus, et 
 iterum, de Pat re & Filio & Sfirtu Sanffo Script urn eft', 
 Et Hi- Tres unum junt. The Lord faid, I and the Fat he* 
 are One ; and again, it is written of the Father , Son, and 
 Holy Ghoft ; And thefe Three are One. 
 
 (8,) The next Text I offer you is Job. 10. 33. Thou 
 being a Man makefl thy Self God. What fays your Authof 
 to this? 
 
 SOC. He fays, They Lfd. 
 
 CHR. That is not the Queftion. But what Notion 
 had the Jews of .that Term, The Son of God ? They 
 knew that God had many Sons by Adoption, and that 
 Kjngs were call'd Gods in their Law, (which you in- 
 fiance pi 76. in Anfwer to Mat, 26. 6$. Tell us whether 
 Thou be the Chrift the Son of God) But a Natural Son, 
 partakes of the True [Nature of his Father ; In which 
 lenfe to xfall any the Son of God, is to call Him True 
 and Real God: As the Jews here you fee underftood it, 
 and in this fenfe it is. That Chnfl is called the Fir ft 
 Begotten. The Produ&ion of God's Nature is EfTential 
 to Him ; and therefore the Firft Produ&ion of God, be- 
 fore any of His outward Acts of Creation,, and in this 
 fenfe Chrift is -God's only Begotten. Thefe are His Epi- 
 thets in Holy Scripture. Now the Queftion. is, whether 
 the Jews underftood Him in this Setfe, or only in the 
 common fenfe of ChrijPs being a God, or a Sov of God, 
 as Kjngs or JuJges are? -ja- 
 
 You Remember what we have faid of God's by Na~ 
 ture, and'G0*fr by 0/flte : And tliat there was a Necef- 
 fuy that our Saviour muft ufe the Terms of the Lcg<>f t 
 
 C 2 or
 
 14; The third- DIALOG V E. 
 
 or the Wor^ and like wife of the Son of God, and all o- 
 ther Terms, in the fame fenfe in which they underftood 
 them to whom He fpoke ; elfe He had not fpoke in 
 Sincerity and Truth. 
 
 SOC. I Remember this very well : And it is neceilary 
 that He (hould ufe thefe Terms in the faTne Senfe the 
 Jews did. Therefore I defire you to prove, that the Jews 
 had any Notion at all of a Natural Son of God, or a 
 Son of God, which is God : For our Author thinks that 
 they had not the leaft fufpicion of any fuch thing, as I 
 Qnoted him to you before, p. 68. 
 
 CHR. And I have Quoted to you before the Jews No- 
 tion of the Trinity, and likewife of the Mefftas, or Scke- 
 china, which they diftinguifhed from the Holy Spirit. If 
 they had no fuch Notion, why then did they charge 
 Chrift with Blajphemy for faying He was the Son of God? 
 And that this did make Him Godl 
 
 SOC. I cannot lee a good Reafon for it. The Ex- 
 preflion is very ftrange. 
 
 CHR. But they explain their own meaning paft Dif- 
 pute. Thou being a, MAN, fay they, makejf thy f'elf GOD. 
 They could not fay this, if they had meant by God, 
 
 Jol.j. i8. on ty a M*"' ^ n ^ *^ e J f ou &^* * %jtl Him, becaufi He 
 ' fata that God was His Father, making Htmfelf equal to 
 God. Being God's Natural Son, does indeed make Him 
 Equal to God, as every Son is Equal to his Father in 
 Nature; and therefore they muft mean it in this Senfe: 
 For otherwife to be God's Adopted Son, or only upon 
 the Account of Creation, is fo far from making us Equal 
 to God, that, on the contrary, it Demonftrats that we 
 are not Equal to Him. And in this fenfe, it is not only 
 no fault, but it is our Duty to call Him our Father ; for 
 fo He is. And therefore it is impoflible that the Jews 
 fhpuld feek to Kjll Him, or be Angry with Him for 
 this, which themfelves did every day; much lefs to in- 
 ferr from hence, that He made Himfelf Equal to God. 
 
 SOC.
 
 The third VlALOGVE. 15 
 
 SOC. But our Author fays, that had our Lord been more 
 than the Son of 'God , He would have orvn'd His Dignity 
 when they Charged Him with Blafphemy, for faying thofe /##. p. 96, 
 things from which it might (by their ft rained- Conferences) 
 be- inferred that He made Himfelf a God. 
 
 CHR. He did own His Dignity plainly; becaufe He 
 
 knew what they meant by the Son of God. But on the 
 
 other hand, if He had not been ftich a Son of God as 
 
 tliey meant, which was to be Equal to God, or to be God: 
 
 Without doubt He would have Renounced the Blafphsmy 
 
 with the utmoft Abhorrence and Deteftation fas St. Paul 
 
 and Barnabas did, when the People took them for God's 
 
 Aff. 14. 14.) and never fuffer'd the Jews to have gone 
 
 away in fo mortal an Error, and juft Prejudice to Him 
 
 and his Doftrin; Efpecially not to loofe His Life for 
 
 it, that when the High-Prieft rent his Cloaths, and the 
 
 Sanedrim Condemned Him to Death for the Blafphemy of 
 
 calling Himfelf the Son of God, He fhould ftand mute 
 
 (which was owning of the Fa&) and refufe to fave His 
 
 Life (which was being acceffary to his own Death) or to 
 
 undeceive thefe fo fatally miftaken in fuch a Blafphemout 
 
 and mortal Error, when Hfe might have done it fo Ea* 
 
 fily as naming this Diftinftion of His not being theA^- 
 
 tural (which only (in their Senfe) was Blafphemous) but 
 
 a Created Son of God, with which none could find any 
 
 fault, much'lefs charge it with ftlafyfarfy But I Go on. 
 
 (9.J Job. 14. i. Te Believe in God, Believe alfo in 
 me. 
 
 SOC. Our Lord has Himfelf interpreted this -Joh. 12. 44. 
 He that Be lieveth on me 9 Believe th not on me^ but on Him 
 that Sent me. 
 
 CHR. That is, They are both one. And you will not 
 find any Prophet , or Jpoftle, no nor Angel, Compare Him- 
 felf thus with God: or that durft fay Honour me, as you 
 Honour God jj and }? Believe in God, Believe alfo in me. 
 
 SOC.
 
 The third DIALOGV E. 
 
 SOC. That is a Different ftile I muft Confefs, from what 
 is us'd of Angels, or of Men. 
 
 (10.) CUR. Joh. 14. 9. 'Ht'tktt hath fee ft me, hath 
 feett the Father. 
 r . 97 . SOC. It is alfo faid of the Difciples, Luk. 10, 16. He 
 
 thai: heareth yov^ heareth me and he that defpifeth jott 
 
 Defpifith me. 
 
 CHR. So he that Defpifeth, or will not Hearken to an 
 HerauM, Defpifeth the Kjng that fent him. But you 
 will not fay, that he who Seeth the Herauld, Seeth the 
 King. 
 
 SOC. That indeed bears a Different meaning, efpecial- 
 ly in one who pretends to be the //# Himfelf, and is Ac- 
 cus'd for fo doing. 
 
 (n.yCHR. Joh. 14. 14. If ye ask any tiling in my 
 Name I mil do it. 
 
 SOC. That is, by Interceflion with the Father, as it is 
 
 p. 93. faid Heb. 7. 25. He is able to fave them that come 
 
 to God by Him, fatng He ever Imetk to make Interceffion 
 for them. 
 
 CHR. The Apoftle is there defcribing His Priejlly- 
 Office ( which was Interceilion for the People} and 
 comparing it with that of Aaron: And this is, as He 
 is Ma. But / will' do what you ask-, is of another Strain, 
 never fpoke by a bare Interceffor^ it arrogates to my 
 lelf to Granc your Petition, and therefore no Man or 
 Angel ever Spoke after this manner. 
 
 ( 12.), Joh. 1 6. 14. He [the Holy Ghoft] JJjaS receive 
 vf mtfis, And (hall fhew it unto you. Here' the Spirit is 
 plainly fpoken of as a Perfon. This we have Difcourft 
 already. 
 
 But what does he fay to thefe words, that the H* 
 Gkoft /batt receive of -drift's > 
 
 OC That is, He [hall receive of 'God, the remainder 
 Pj iii. of CkrrJPs Doftrin, and fetch it to the Apofths.
 
 The third D IALO G&E. 17 
 
 CHR. This is beyond a ftraind Interpretation-, It is 
 Adding to the Text and your Author might have made 
 it fignifie what he pleas'd. But our Saviour gives an- 
 other reafon, why the//. GboH did receive of His: Be- 
 caufe, fays He in the next words, All things that the 
 Father bath are mine: Therefore faid /, that He fbalt 
 receive of mine. And verf. 7, He attributes to Him- 
 felf, the Sending of the H. Gho&. I will fend Him un- 
 to you. 
 
 Will you now give unto a Creature the Power of 
 Sending the H. Spirit , which you fay, is not Any thing 
 Different from God, but is God? A Creature to fend 
 God\ And to give Him fomething of a Creatures to 
 carry/ A Creature to call God his M^enger^ and to fay, 
 He jhall receive of MINE and give to you \ And for a 
 Creature to fay that all things that are Gods are bts I 
 Thefe things are 1)nint eligible, Irreconcilable upon your 
 Scheme. But in the Doctrine of the Trinity of Perfont, 
 in the Vnity of Nature, they are obvious and eafie .- For 
 there is a Natural Order and Superiority of the Perfos 9 . 
 in an Equality of Nature : Which we fee even among 
 Men, as. has been explained, 
 
 SOC. My Author obje&s that the Holy Ghoft appear'd 
 in the Form of a Dove on Christ, and of Cloven-Tongues p. 102. 
 on the Apoftles. And he asks what Senfe the Trinita- 
 rians can make of thefe things ? they fay the Spirit is 
 a Per/iw, and God: Did God receive and afTume the 
 fbape of a Dov^ that is, of a Brute ? What hinders okjeft. of 
 but that they may believe all the Transformations in the the H. 
 Metamorphofis of Ovid ? 
 
 CH/^. He refts mightily Affufd in this Objeffion 
 and Exprefles it very Modeftly \ But let us fee what is 
 in it. 
 
 Firft for the Holy-Ghoft appearing in the Form of 
 Cloven-Tongues, he himfelf ConfefTes, that this was toEx- 
 prtfs the Gift then beftow'd, which may be the Gift of 
 
 Tongues*
 
 1 8 The third 3) IALJGV E. 
 
 Tongues. And confequently, it was not to Exprefs rtie 
 Form or Shape of. the Giver. So this Part of the Objetfi- 
 on is over. 
 
 He fays, That for the like Reafon the Holy Ghoff 
 appeared in the Shape of a Dove at our SAVlOVR's 
 Baptifm, to Signife the Mild and Peaceable Spirit of 
 Chrifi. 
 
 If fo, then this Attrition too was as an Emblem 
 of the G//f,and not of the Giver. So that he has An* 
 fwer^d himfelf. 
 
 But in the Next place, it do's not appear that ther 
 was any Shape of a Dove at our SAPlQVJjfa Baptifm. 
 Tho' it is (I think) a Vulgar Error. For Which Rea- 
 fon I will fpeak a little of it here. 
 
 Ther was a Bodily Shape Appeared : Elfe the People 
 coifd not have feen it. But what was this Shape, Or 
 Appearance^. It was a Fire of Glory that Defended from 
 Heaven, and Lighted upon the Head of our Saviour. But 
 how did It Light ? Was it like a flafb of Lightning^ Quick 
 and Tranfent ? No. For then, in fo Great a Multitude, the 
 People Cou'd not have Difcern'd for what Particular 
 Per fin it was Meant. Did it Come down Swift, as a 
 Bird of Pray ftoops to its Game, like an Arrow out 
 of a Bow? No. It Defcended Leafurly and Hovering^ 
 as a D0z/* do's, when it Lights upon the Ground, that 
 the ?*<?/>/<? might take the more Notice. And to Ex- 
 prefs the Over-Shadowing of the H Spirit. And it 
 not only Lighted upon the H<?W of our Saviour, but 
 it ^/We and Remained upon Him. As it is faid, Jeh. 
 
 .1. ?2. n- 
 
 Now that the Expreflion in the Text, Like a Dove, 
 do's Refer to this Manner of the Defcent of that G/0/7 
 upon our #/. Saviour, and not to the Shape of it, Ap- 
 pears from the Grammatical Gonftru&ion of the Words 
 in the Text, which is better Diftinguifhed in the Greek 
 
 and
 
 The third DIALOG E. 
 
 and Latin, than ia the English, where the Cafes of Noun? 
 are Exprefs'd by Particles, and not by their Termination^ 
 Now if thefe words, Like a Dove, had Refer'd to the 
 Shape, then the word Deve muft have been in the Geni- 
 tive Cafe, -the Shape of a Dove. But it is not fo, either 
 in the Greek or Latin. It is (aid in the Greek, That the 
 H. Ghoft Defcended ffaojwtriKto w^ei, in a Bodily Appearance*' 
 c&re* (or us as the Cambridge Copy of Bez,a Reads it^l 
 Trt&Gt&iv, but if it had Refer'd to the Shape, it muft 
 have been , <rei Tree/reg^, ty a to^- Thus the 
 Latin, Defcendit corporali Specie, ficut Columba. That is, 
 Sicut Columba dejcendit. As a Dove Defcends. It can bear 
 no other Conduction. But if it had Refer'd to the 
 Shape, it muft have been, Dejcendit Cor for alt Specie, Jicut 
 Columb*, The Shape of a Dove. Which is not in our 
 Englifh. It is not f|id in our Englifh the Shape ,of a 
 Dove. But that the Ho/j Ghoft Defcended fin a Bodily 
 Shape) like a Dove, that is, as a Dove Defcends. If i 4 
 had Refer'd to the Shape, it ihou'd have {aid, In a Bodily 
 Shape, as of a Dove. Or like as of * Dove. ^c' v 
 
 Befides, if that Glory which Appear'd had been no 
 Bigger than a Daw, (which is not to be Imagin'd, 
 when it is faid the Heaven was Opened. And the Peo- 
 ple had not taken fo much Notice, if the Appearance had 
 been no Bigger than a Dow, it might have Efcap'd the 
 Sigbt of Many ; but fuppofe it) Eow fliouM they know 
 it to be a .Dove t more than any other Bird, or T^w, 
 of the like Bignefs? EfpeciaBy confidering that it utterM 
 no Voice, for it is Exprefly faid, That the Voice came 
 from Heaven, then not from that which Abode or Re- 
 wain*d upon our Saviour. 
 
 I have faid thus much of it, becaufe of the too com- 
 mon Practice of Painting the Holy Gkof like a J20w. 
 Which gives Countenance to the ufage in the Church of 
 Rome of Painting God, the Father like an 0/<rf A/^, from 
 His being Call'd the Ancient oj Days, and Reprefented 
 
 D to
 
 2* 73 / DIALOGUE. 
 
 I * \ ^ ' Li* ^\a\ ' i 4 * r* * - r 
 
 ttf Daniel- "v a.Lfr^ (fo it is Exprefly faid, D<*#. 7. i.) 
 1 ' 
 
 Throw, . 
 But in that Glorious Appearance ' at Htfn? (which was 
 
 more than a Dream) it is particularly Caution'd, 
 4. 12. !Tta L0r^ ^ta 0#to you out of the midft of the 
 Fire, ye beArd the Voice of the words , but faiv no Similitude. 
 That is, of God who fpoke, for they law many other 
 Similitudes, as Fire, Smoke, &c. But they were to make 
 no RefemkLattce of God from any thing that they SAW. 
 And the fowl of the Air are particularly nam'd, ver. 17. 
 
 But how do you SocinUns get over this T?^ ? You, 
 who by the Holy Ghofl mean only an Infpiration, or an 
 jlttnbate of G^, as His Wifdom or Power. Now for an 
 litfffrttjojt or a Qudity, or Attribute, to take a Bo^/'/j/ <S^^f, 
 has an' Abfurdity in it beyond any you can charge upon 
 our Interpret At ion of this TXx/. 
 
 <SOtV Our Author gives an Anfwer to the T^JC^ before 
 
 Quote. dj Joh. 16. 15. all things that the Father hath are 
 
 105. * n ** he a ys that St. P4a/faid as much of every Chri- 
 
 ftiAHy i Cor. 3. 21, 22. all things are yours ^thiztgs pre- 
 
 feoty things to come are yaars. 
 
 CHR. All things, is often us'd to exprefs all the things 
 Mfhich we aref then fpeaking of: And what thefe things 
 were, anc( what he meant by all things in this Text,. 
 St. Pal, fufficiently Declares, while he repeats that ex- 
 preffion in the fame Breath, whether Paul, or Apollo, or- 
 Cephas, or the World^ or Life, or Death, or things Pre- 
 few j or" things 1 9 come, ALL are yours , that is all thefe 
 things are intended 'for your Benefit: Not only the 
 prefent Miniflration of the Gofpel in the hands of Paul, 
 or Apollo, or other Men; and the'Gr^ which God be- 
 ftows upon them in this Life; But even Heaven here- 
 after, 'will be the Portion of Saiwts: But all thefe things are 
 riot, aft tkirtgs that the Father hatb. This which St. Paul 
 freaks to CprWafls, has no proportion to what Chrift
 
 He third DIAL&GVE. 
 
 SOC. He gives a fecond Anfwer. He fays that faying 
 of Chrifl is thus to be rendered. All things , relating to 
 the Do&rin and Difcipline of the Chriftian Church, which 
 the pAther hath in His MM and Depgn, tire mlnei 1 *- 
 
 CHR. Blefsme! That men fhould pretend to Redfon, 
 and to appeal to Scripture ; and yet take upon them 
 not only to Interpret them to all the Perverfnefs that 
 words are capable of, but where that will not do, to 
 Add, what they pleafe to the Text, and turn it to what- 
 ever they have a mind to ! I'l undertake give me this 
 Latitude, and you fhall not prove from Scripture, That 
 there is a God, or a World, or ever fuch a man as Chrift. 
 There is an Ingenious Book written, expofing their method 
 of Argument, by which the Author proves from Scripture, 
 after their manner of Interpretation, that Women have no 
 Souls, and Anfwers all Texts againft it in the Socinian 
 way ; and as plaufibly as they oppofe thefe Texts which 
 prove the Trinity^ or the Incarnation, and Satisfaction of 
 Chrift. And another maintains the Eternity of the 
 World, and Anfwers the ift. of Genifis as the Socinians 
 do. Col. i. 1 6. viz,. That by Creating was only meant 
 Modelling or New Ordering. Which you will fee more 
 of when we come to that Text. Others (et up Prx- 
 Adamites, without any ftop from the Story of t*?#/- 
 fs. And indeed there is no ftop, to Invention, at this 
 rate, nor any certainty in words. No Temporal Law 
 can guard it felf without this Maxim, that ubi lex- non 
 Diftinguit, ibi non eft Dijlinguenduw, -you muft not D/- 
 flingftijb) but where the Law do's Dijlinguifh for that is 
 to let your felf above all Laws, and alter them at your 
 pleafure. 
 
 But Adding is yet more Arbitrary. And your Author 
 adds more than two thirds to this Text. Therefore I re- 
 commend to our Author's ferious Meditation that Admo- 
 nition Prov. 30. 6, Add not then unto His words, left hs 
 refrevt thte, and tkott be found a- Ljar t For every word 
 
 D 2 <
 
 The third V I A LOG V E. 
 
 of God is Pure. His word is Perfect And Intire ; and be 
 that addeth to it, God will Add to him the Plagues written in 
 v. *2. rt'tfat Book. 
 
 But that you may not lean wholly upon what I fay 
 in defence of this Text we are upon Joh. 16. 15. you 
 may Confult TertuHian adverf. Prax. c. 17. p. 516. where 
 he proves, from this Te xt, that Chrifl is God. 
 
 (13.) Chrijl fays to the Father Joh. 17. 5. Glorify me 
 with thine own Self \ with the Glory 1 had with Thee, before 
 the World WAS. Does not this prove Chrift to be before 
 the World? 
 
 j/;0.p.io4. SOC. This he Anfwers, that is, The Glory I had with 
 Thee, in thy Decree and Defign, before the World was. 
 
 CHR. Does he give any Reafon why it is other wife 
 expreft in the Text? 
 
 SOC. No. But he brings other Texts where what 
 was only in Decree, was faid actually to he.- 
 
 CHR. Without fomething in the Text to fhew that it 
 fpeaks of fuch a Decree ? 
 
 SOC. Yes fare, elfe they cannot he Parallel Cafes to 
 this Te xt. 
 
 CHR. Let us hear them. 
 
 SOC. i Pet. i. ii. Searching- what, and what wanner 
 of time the Spirit" did fignife, when it teftifed before 
 hand the Sufferings of Chrifl 9 and what was to follow. 
 
 CHR. Is there nothing in this Text which tells you 
 that it teftify'd before-hand, of what was to follow? 
 
 SOC. He might have fpar'd this Inftance^ The next 
 is better 2. Cor. 5. i. We ha've a Building of God, an 
 Houfe not made with Hands. Here we have, is, we have 
 it in God's Decree or Intention. 
 
 CHR. And is there nothing of that expreft in the 
 Text ? If you had repeated two words more, it would 
 have told you, that this Houfe was referv*d for us, m 
 Heaven. And that it was not to be till after our Earth- 
 Ijt Houfe of THIS, Tabernacle were DiffoWd. And there- 
 fore
 
 The third DIA LOGV E. 
 
 fore that We groan earnest) after it, expe&ing it ; and 
 therefore that we have it but in Reverfion, not in prefent 
 Pojfeffton. So that what is meant by we have in that 
 Text is very plainly told. 
 
 SOC His next Text will do it. 2 Tim. i. 9. Grace 
 was given as in Chrif before the World was. Where again, 
 was given to us, is, was given in God's Decree and Inten- 
 tion. 
 
 CHR. And is there nothing in this Text to fhew us, 
 that this was only in God's Purpofe or Decree ? If you 
 had Repeated but one word before, it had hindred you 
 from producing of this Text. For there it exprefly tells 
 us, That this Grace given us before the World, was in 
 God's Purpofe According to His own PVRPOSE, and 
 Grace which was given us, before the World was. And this 
 is the Apoftle's Stile in other places where He fpeaks 
 of the fame, Tit. i. 2. in hope of Eternal Life, which God 
 
 PROMISED before the World began. Eph. I. 4.* He 
 
 hath CHOSEN VS in Him, before the Foundation of the 
 World, (c. ?. n) According to the Eternal PVRPOSE, 
 which He PVRPOSED in Chrifl Jefus our Lord. 
 
 Now if you can fliew fuch an Explanation in that 
 Text Joh. 17. 5. then thefe may be parallel Cafes. 
 
 But I have another thing to ask in this matter. 
 Do not Decrees always look forward, and refpeft: things 
 to come ? 
 
 SOC. Yes certainly. One is not faid to Decree what 
 is Pa(l. 
 
 CHR. But our Saviour in this Text fpeaks of what 
 is Pa/i- the Glory which I had with Thee be- 
 fore the World was. Common Speech allows to fay, 
 I have a Reversion. But to fay, that I bad, what I 
 have not yet, nor ever bad;., is a new way of Speak- 
 ing. 
 
 But there is more than this yet You fay that Cbrip t 
 had no Being before the World.
 
 24 The third DIALOGUE. 
 
 SOC. Yes. That is our Tenet. 
 CHR. How had He Glory then before tin World. 
 when He had no Being ? Was this by Way of Decree 
 too? lren& r is (adverf. HerA. 4. c tS.p. 547.^ quotes this 
 Text to prove Chrifs Exiftence oefore the World. 
 And Origen (in Mat. p. "3 26.) fays, it was not meant of 
 this World. 
 
 SOC. Pray. Let us go to fome other Text. 
 (i^)CHR. Joh. 20. 28. Thomas Avfivtred, And fad 
 unto Him, my Lord And my God. \ , 
 
 SOC. My Lord\ Are words of Congratulation to 
 P. io5. our Saviour, and My God! Words of Admiration and 
 Fraife to God. 
 
 CHR. This is very Ingenious/ But if I fhould ask, 
 who told you this ? There is nothing of this Difcovery 
 in the Text. But I wonder he wou'd let either of thefc 
 belong to Chrift, becaufe they feem both to be* fpoken 
 of the fame Perfon as much as words can bear. 
 
 6'OC. The reafon is, becaufe they were fpoke to Chrift^ 
 -and as a Confequence of Thomas's Conviction after his 
 having fo long remain'd Doubtful of our Saviour'* s Re- 
 furrection', of which being now fatisficd, he makes this 
 Confeflion to Chrift, and therefore at lead one of them 
 muft belong to Ckr/ft 
 
 CHR. Then there wiH be hazard of the Others go- 
 ing along with it, for they are link'd very ciofe to. 
 gether. 
 
 The truth of it is, our Author leans that way. And 
 fays Neftorius Patriarch of Conftantinvple thought fo; 
 But he will not truft to that. Becaufe it feems a Ve- 
 ry harfh Interpretation, to make 'Them** Anfwer a 
 Quciiion of our Saviours to him, only by an Excla- 
 mation, whtch might ferve any Queftion in the World, 
 by faying, God\ Which a Man will do when you 
 pinch his Finger. Whereas otherwifi it was a Direct 
 and full Anfwer to our Saviour. His Refarretfion was 
 
 a Great
 
 The third D I A L 0* 6 V . 25 
 
 a Great Proof of His Divinity : Of this Thomas rejnain'd 
 a while Doubtful ; But being Convinc'd by our Savi- 
 our, he then acknow leges Christ to be his Lord and his 
 God; and this by way of Anfwer to our Saviour: Be 
 not Faithlefs* but believing fays Cbrtft, Then Thomas 
 Anfwers and owns his Belief, by acknowledging Chrijt 
 to bzLord and God. S. Cyprian .quotes this 'Text as pro- 
 ving the Divinity of Chrift (adverf. Jud. 1 2. c.6. p. 35.) 
 But we go on. 
 
 (15.) Aft <;. 3, 4. Why hath Satan filed thine Heart, to 
 
 Ije to the Holy Ghoft f Thou haft not lied unto Men, 
 
 but unto God, 
 
 60C. Thou haft lied to the Holy Gfajl. i.e. to qs 
 Apoftles who have the Holy Spirit', or Inflation of God 
 in us. 
 
 CHR. To lie to an fafyiration, is a grange Expreflion. 
 In the next place. Tho* you allow the Spitit of God t 
 fometimes, to be put for God, Him/elf-, yet it is a little 
 over bold, methinks, ,to put It fcr an Apoflle. There 
 fhould be very Good Authority for that, Something 
 ftronger than one of our Authors Sappofes. When was 
 S. Peter call'd the Holy Gkojl before ? Or the Holy Ghojl 
 call'd by the Names of any of the Apoplest Becaufe 
 the Holy f Ghofl Infpires me, am I therefore the Holy 
 Ghojl ? fo that if you tell me a lie, it is to be call'd tel- 
 ing a Lie to Godt But more efpecially, when the Text 
 fays, he did not Lie to Men. 
 
 SOC. That is, not to Men only, or Chiefly. 
 
 CHR. No. There is another Reafon. Men could 
 not know that he Lyed\ but only God, who knew his 
 Heart. And therefore it is call'd a lying to God, and 
 not to Men\ for there was no Evidence produced againft 
 him, they knew not but he fpoke Truth, in telling 
 them the Price of his Land, which was the matter then 
 in Debate. 
 
 SOC,
 
 The third DIALOGVE. 
 
 SOC. Our Author brings a Text to fupport him. * 
 
 Tbef.^. 8. He therefore that Defpifeth, Defpifeth not MAN^hut 
 GOD. Who hath alfo given to us His Holy Spirit. Here 'tis 
 manifeft, that thofe who Defpited the Apbftles, are faid 
 to Defpife God, bscAufi God WAS in them, ~by His 
 Spirit. 
 
 CHR. I utterly deny that to be the Reafon, for 
 that wou'd transferr the Honour of God to Every Good 
 Man, which is, to every ftranger I meet, for ought 
 I know to the Contrary ; That if I Defpife Him y I 
 Defpife God. Which is Extravagant -even to Blaf- 
 phemy. 
 
 But the meaning is, He that Defpifeth that Meffage 
 which God fent by the Apojtles, which was the Gof- 
 pel of Chrifly he Defpifeth not Mw, for it is not the 
 Gofpel of Man, but he Defpifeth God^ the Author and 
 Sender of it. A if any fhould Return a Kjng an 
 Opprobrious Anfwer by his AmbaffAdor : The Affront 
 could not be .underftood to the Amhaffador but to the 
 Kjng who fent him. But this has nothing in the 
 World to do with our prefent Cafe, wherein our 
 Author would have the Honor of God to belong to 
 every M.w, to whom God gave the AJRftance of His 
 Bleffed Spirit. 
 
 This. is a fuificient anfwer to the Hijloriatfs Inter- 
 pretation of this Text. But I cannot forbear to (hew 
 the Ridiculous madnefs of your Evangelift Biddle in his 
 Expofition of this Text, in the above quoted Volume 
 of SociniAn Tratfs, Intitled The Frith of one God, &c. p. 9, 
 IQ. where, inftead of Axanias Lying to the Holy Ghoft, he 
 wou'd very fain (but without any Ground ) have it un- 
 derftood that AnanUs did tell a Lye of the Holy Gh^ft, 
 viz. That the Holy Ghofl had put it into bis heart to 
 Sell his Farme, and I Ay .down the Price at the Apoflles feet ; 
 and fo was Guilty of BUfpheny again ft the Holy Spirit, 
 in faltering upon the Holy Spirit that which WAS Ejected 
 
 int9
 
 The third DIALOGUE. 27 
 
 into bis he Art by the unclean Spirit, i. e. to fell his 
 Lands. Whereby you muft firft obferve, that it was 
 by the Infpiration of the Unclean Spirit that Ananias, 
 and confequently other Ckriflians of that time did fell 
 their Pofleflions, to Diftribut to the Neceflities of others, 
 which the Script are, and, I believe all Mankind elfe 
 before Mr. Riddle, have always afcrib'd to the Great 
 Grace, with which we are told Act. 4. gj. God did 
 Blefs thofe Early Converts to the Chriftian Faith. 
 
 Secondly, he fays, that thefe words in this Text, why 
 hath Satan filed thy Heart to deceive God ? Seem to be Blaf- 
 phemy [ that is, fuppofing the Holy Ghoft to be God ~\for 
 it import eth [ lays he ] either that God may be Deceived, 
 of elfe that Satan, or at leaft Ananias thought fo, other- 
 wife he rvoifd not have proposed in his heart to do it. 
 Thus Delicat Mr. Biddlel I wou'd recommend to his 
 Annotations i. Joh. 5. 20. he that believe! h not the So 
 hath made him (God) a, Lyar, becattfe he believeth not 
 the, Testimony which God gave of his Son. Will Mr. Bid- 
 die hence infer that any Man had fuch a Notion of 
 the Supream Being, as that He is a Lyar ? Or not rather 
 that, as we are faid to Crucify Cbrijl afrefh by our 
 Sins, to Grieve the Spirit of God, &c. So, by Confe- 
 quence, we make God a Lyar, when we do not Believe 
 the Teftimony He has given; tho 7 , at the fame time, 
 ' none can be fuppos'd fo grofly Ignorant of the Nature 
 of God, as to think Him capable of Deceiving, or being 
 Deceived ; No. Neither Satan nor Ananias were fuch Spe- 
 culative Atheijls, tho' Practically every Sinner is fuch, in 
 fome Degree. But, if you will have it, according to 
 Mr. BiMk's Expofition, that not to believe the Teflimony 
 which God hath given of His Son, is to be a downright 
 Speculative Atheift, or to think Him a Lyar, which is the 
 fame, or worfe; then I defire you to look to it, for it 
 will (land you as much upon to clear your felves from 
 Atheifm, for not believing the many Teftimonies which 
 
 God
 
 The third DIAIOGV E. 
 
 God has given of the Divinity of His Son; as from 
 Idolatry, in Worshiping Him, whom you do not think 
 to be True God. 
 
 (16.) Ad. 7. 59. They Stoned Stephen, culling upon 
 God, And Saying, Lord Jefus Receive my Spirit. Here 
 Praying to ^efus is call'd Praying to God. 
 
 SOC. The Greek is, Lord of Jefas, Receive my Spi- 
 rit. 
 
 CHR. This is only becaufe the word Jtfa is Inde- 
 clinable -, that makes it no more of Jefu, then in, by, 
 with, or from Jefu. And this Text, is as much Lord 
 
 yfa as it is pofiible for either Greek or Lutin to 
 
 exprefs it. ^ > 
 
 SOC. Well K we will give you another Anfwer. That 
 P. 108. is , Stephen called upon God, And he alfo fad, Lord Jefu 
 Receive my Spirit. 
 
 CHR. Does your Author alledge any Authority for 
 this ? 
 
 SOC. No. Not a word. But only that he fuppofes 
 3, Stephens Vifion of Cbrift at the Right hand of Ged, 
 which he had before the Council, to Continue Still with 
 him. 
 
 CHR. What is all this to^ the Bufmefs ? I cannot 
 fee how it Concerns j:his Text, or favours his Addition^ 
 afnd Interruption of the Senfe, which fpeaks of Stephen 
 calling upon God And Saying inftead of which our 
 Author adds, of his own head ; And he alfo f*id, lea- 
 ving out the word in the Text, for both words can- 
 not be in ; it cannot be both Sayi/tg, and he alfo fad. 
 And he does not fo much as pretend that the word 
 SAjivg was not right Tranflated, or any thing amifs 
 in it; So that here, by his own ConfefBon, is both 
 Subjlr&ftiov and Addition to the word of God; nay more, 
 a putting in his own Invention initead of the word 
 of God. I am weary of this.
 
 The thirJ DIALOGUE. 
 
 (17.) Aft. 9. 14. 21. To bind nil that call ttfon tljy 
 Name. (The words are Spoken of the Lord 'ChMftyis. 
 is made Undeniable by verf. 17.) Is not this he thdt De~ 
 ftrofd them which called on this Name (Chrift's Name) 
 fa Jerufalem ? 
 
 SOC. The SocinUns generally not only grant $ but -etiv.- 
 neftly Contend, that Chrt/t is to be Wor/biffed,. fad- ^&r*fd ^ 
 to ; That he is to be Worfbiped with Divine Worfitif. 
 
 CHR. This is their opinion ; and it is the Sore-fact 
 of the SocinUns ; herein they Divide r and herein they. 
 Contradift themfelves. And inftead of Anfwering this 
 Text, your Author brings feveral Arguments frdm elfb- 
 where againft the Divinity of Chritt, and to avoid 
 Anfoering, he turns an Objector. His Arguments are 
 all Anfwer'd in what is faid before, therefore I will 
 not trouble you with them. For we are now up- 
 on his Reply to the Texts are brought v againft him. 
 
 SOC. When he is againft the Invocation of Chrift 
 (which is not always) he Anfwers thefe Texts thus 
 To bind all that call upon his Name. And again, them 
 that called on this Name in Jerufalem. He fays the Ori- 
 ginal Greek may be Tranflated feveral ways. F/r#, To 
 bind all that are called by thy Natne. Secondly, To bind 
 all that Name this Name. 
 
 CHR. We know his Gift in Interpretations ; And 
 for Anfwer, we infift ; that the Greek does not beat 
 his Senfe, but is Rightly Translated in our Bibles : 
 and for him to offer nothing againft it, but his own 
 Saying fo, and thus and thus it may be, is no indifferent 
 meafure of Afturance, which oft pafles with him inftead 
 of Argument. 
 
 But in this fame Chap.* verf. 10. It's faid, That THE 
 LORD appeared to Ananias, And the LORD faid unto him 
 &c. what Lord was this ? 
 
 E 2 SOC.
 
 ?a The third DIALOGUE. 
 
 SOC. It was the True God certainly : For this is 
 the common Stile of God thro' all the Scriptures. 
 
 CHR. And it is Certain, that this was Jefus who 
 fpoke to Ananias, and to whom Ananias fpoke, and 
 who fent An AM AS to S*ul verf. 17. The LORD even 
 JESVS hath fent me, fays Anattius. Hear another Text. 
 
 Aft. 1 5. 28. If feemed Good to the H. Ghofl and 
 
 Sifl. V.ii*. fo &*' 
 
 (18,) SOC. ThAt is 9 to God's Infpiration in us; And there- 
 fore to us Alfo. 
 
 CHR. To feem good to an InfpirAtion ! Or to us 
 and to our InfpirAtionl This has been fpoke to be- 
 fore. 
 
 (19.^ Aft. 20. 28. Feed the Church of God which he 
 kAth purchafed with his own Blood. 
 
 SOC. My Author here again Difputes the true Reading 
 of this Text ; and fays that fome Read it Feed the 
 Church of CHRIST. 
 
 CHR. And we ft ill inftft upon the truth of our 
 TranJlAtion, againft his bare Saying ; which we fay is an 
 Evident Sign of his loft Caufe, when he has nothing 
 to fay but to A/ert, without Proof. 
 
 SOC. His fecond Anfwer is, That fome Mafters of 
 the Greek Tongue, do render the words thus, feed the 
 Church of God, which He hath parch fifed with Hit OWN 
 Sot?* Blood. 
 
 CHR. However skilfull in the Greek they may be: 
 The word [Son's] is a plain Addition, which is beyond 
 the Power of Interpretation. 
 
 SOC. His third Anfwer is, That tie Blood of God is 
 no more, than the Blood which God gave. As the Lamb 
 of God 9 is no more than the Lamb which God gave. 
 
 CHR. The common Law of Difcourfe allows me to 
 call any thing mine that belongs to me, as my Horfe, 
 my Cow, &c. But no Language ever calPd another Man's 
 Blood, my Blood, unlefs my Sous, or near Relations, whofe 
 
 Blood
 
 The third D I A L G V E. 31 
 
 Blood is really mine. As we call our Children, oar 
 Flefh And, Blood, in which Senfe you will not allow 
 Chrifl to be the Son of God. 
 
 CHR. I Come now to your Authors Fourth Letter 
 which contains the Texts out of the Epiflles and Re- 
 Delation, and there firft take notice of his Motto-Text 
 Rom. I. 25. of thefe who change the Truth of God 
 into a Lie, and werjhip the Creature. And defire your 
 Author to reconcile it to their worfliip of Cr//?fup- 
 pofing Him a Creature, as they do; and their Arbi- 
 trary changing the Jexts of Scripture as we havefeen. 
 But now to the Texts. The firft I name is 
 
 (20.) Rom. 9. 5, of whom, as ^concerning the Fle/b, 
 Chrift came ; who is over all God, Blejfed for ever Amen. \ 
 Fll undertake he will have fomething to fay againft 
 this Text ; for it is too Pofitive to be endur'd; 
 
 SOC. Yet he is more merciful then be us'd to be; 
 for here he fays only that it is Probable, by fome Paf- 
 fages in the Fathers (which he dees not tell us) that the 
 word God was not originally in this Text. 
 
 But Becaufe this will not do, he An fivers, Secondly, 
 that thefe words ought to be Tranflated thus, of whom 
 as Concerning the Fteffi Chrifl came y God who is over a/I 
 be Blejfed for ever. Amen* 
 
 CHR. Thrs is Adding again to the Text : for the 
 English is rendered even Literally from the Greek, and 
 there is no fuch word in the -Greek as Be > Gcd BE Bleffed, 
 but it is, God Blejfed for ever. 
 
 And the very natural running of the words comes in- 
 to our fenfe, Chrifl who is is what? God Blejfed 
 
 there is nothing elfe for Him to be in that Text : For thefe 
 words over all, are but an Epithet of the Perfon there 
 Detcrib'd, like Ble fled for ever. The Perfon there fpoke 
 of is over all, and BleJJed forever, and is God. For this 
 Text is not telling what God is, but what Chrifl is, of 
 whom only the Afofk is fpeaking from the Beginning 
 
 of
 
 32 The third DIALOGUE. 
 
 of this Chapter, without the word God usM at all before 
 that mentioned in this Text. .And in this cafe the only 
 Remedy left to the Author , is, to cut One Sentence 
 into TwOy and apply One of them to a Perfon who is 
 %ot Mentioned at all in the whole Difeourfe. But this 
 it felf will not do, for there will want a word, to turn 
 the Serife to Another than the Perfon there (poke of ; 
 for read the Text, Chrift who is 9 this word is referrs 
 to all the particulars which follow in the fame Sentence. 
 1>, over all, is, God Bleffed for ever. Now to make a 
 new Sentence in the Middle of this, there will want 
 another //, for it muft be either that Something is God 9 
 or, God is fomething. God Bleffed for ever, without any 
 more, is no Sentence at all there is nothing Affirmed or 
 Denfd. But to end all thefe Difputes , our Author 
 Adds the word ffe, after the word God, God be Bleffed ; 
 and then k felf it is but Poflible to become a Diftinft 
 Sentence, for k breaks and tears the Senfe, and ihocks 
 any Reader, to ftop in the Middle of the Defcription 
 of one Perfon, and, without any why or wherefore, to 
 apply Two or Three of the Epithets to another Perfon 
 not Mention'd before, and to Force in a new word on 
 purpofe to bring it in. 
 
 But a Good Caufe will ftruggle thro* many of thefe 
 Hardfhips. 
 
 But then to call this Plain and Eajy, and mojl Rati- 
 onal, that indeed is a little impofing, and hard to be 
 born, but for fo neceflary a work as to take away 
 the Divinity of Chrift 9 or any Argument for the Tri~ 
 nitj. 
 
 Tertullian (adverf. Prax. . 15. and 15. p. 507, 508, 
 509.; quotes this Text as proving Christ to be God. S. 
 Cyprian, does the fame, Adverf. lnd. 1. 2. . 6. p. ^5. and 
 Irenes. 1. J. 'c. 18. 
 
 That other Expreflion in this Text [jj concerning the 
 that ChriH came of the Fathers only as to what 
 
 con-
 
 The third DIALOGUE. W 
 
 V ?**- V I/73LV5. Vv-r} Ht-l.J 
 
 concerned His T/e/p, or ffumax Nature, fhews plainly 
 that He had another Nature which did not come from 
 the Fathers^ or that was Deriv'd to Him from His 
 Birth of the Bleffed Virgin ; The fame Caution of EKr 
 prefTion is us'd AL 2. 30. where Chitft is call'd the 
 Seed of David 9 only according to the. Flefb. 
 
 (21.) I would defire among other his Congruous 
 and eafy Interpretations to look into the i-ft. verfe of this 
 9th. Chap* to the Rom. I fay the truth in ChriH, my 
 Conjcience alfo be wing me witnefs in the Holy Ghoft. What' 
 is the meaning of fpeaking the Truth in Chrtft^, Sup- 
 pofing Him only to be a Man^ and abjent in Heaven. 
 And then my Conference -bearing me witnefs in the Holy 
 Ghoft) Sure to make any thing a Judge and Difcerner 
 of Conscience , is to make it God v for that is an Incom- 
 municable Attribute, by the Confeffion of all. But ta- 
 king the Holy Ghoft in your Authors Interpretation, only 
 for the Inflation which God fends into our Hearts Then 
 you muft read the Text thus, My Conscience bearing me 
 witnefs, in my Infpiration^ which no body can fay but 
 is very Familiar and Intelligible ! 
 
 But the Apoftie here appealing to (thrift, and the 
 Holy Ghoft as Judges of his on\cience, I think is a De- 
 monftration, that they are Perjons-, and that they are 
 God, 
 
 SOC. Our Author fays nothing of this Text. And 
 now let us follow him. 
 
 (22) CHR. There is fomething of this in his next 
 Quotation Rom. 2. 16. God /ball Judge the Secrets -of 
 Men by 'Jefus Chrijl. i. Cor. 4, 5. who both mil bring to 
 L$ght the hidden things of Darknejs, and mil make mani- . 
 feft the Councils of Hearts. 
 
 SOC. Chrifs Knowledge of the Secrets of Hearts is 
 by the Divine Word communicated to Him, and by Ke- 
 from God. 
 
 Cbriftiw
 
 The third DIALOGV E. 
 
 CHR. If God Reveal to me that another Man does 
 now think fo or fo, does that make me a Kjiower of 
 Hearts ? I know that particular that is Revealed to me, 
 but no more. Neither do I know it by knowing the 
 Man's Heart, I know it only by Revelation. 
 
 But to have a Power within my felf to know the 
 Hearts of all Men, to look into a Man's Heart, and fee 
 his Thoughts, is not Communicable to a Creature. God only 
 knows the Hearts of Men. i King. 8. 39. 
 
 And that Chrift has that Attribute of God of knowing 
 Htarts, not when it is Reveal' d to Him by Another; but 
 that He knows them in His Spirit, as it is faid of Him 
 Mark 2. 8. and in Himfelf, Mark. 5. 30. is plain from 
 many Scriptures befides thefe now Quoted, fee Joh. 2, 
 24. 25. Jefus - Kjterv all Men ; and needed not that any 
 .fbould Tejltfy of Man ; for He Kjierv what was in Man. 
 
 SOC. The Defence <rf the Hift. p. 53. proves that this 
 was no Inherent Perfonal Knowledge in Chrift, in Oppofi- 
 tion to Revelation. 
 
 CHR. How does he prove it ? 
 SOC. He fays, what is known by Revelation is an In. 
 herent Perfonal Kjwrvledge. 
 
 CHR. That is, fuch Knowledge is Inherent, becaufe it 
 is in a Man. And it is Perfonal, becaufe it is the Man's 
 own Perfon that Knows. This indeed is a noble Difco- 
 very, and by this he would quite take away the Diftintli- 
 on 'twixt Perfonal Inherent Knowledge, and Revelation ; 
 becaufe, fays he, Revelation it felf is a Perfonal Inherent 
 
 But after all this Socinian-Subtilty, is it poflible, or 
 would he have us Believe, that he cannot fee the diffe- 
 r rence 'twixt what a Man knows of his own Natural la- 
 \$>ere/it Knowledge, and what he Knows by Revelation 
 and that for no better Reafon, but becaufe he Knows 
 both ; and that it is he himfelf, his own Perfon which 
 knows both ? A Mans Natural Inherent Knowledge is ftin- 
 
 ted
 
 Us third DIALOGUE. 35 
 
 ted and cannot go beyond its Sphere. And therefore one 
 Mans Natural Knowledge is Greater than anothers. But 
 there are none fo Great as to difcover Come things, par- 
 ticularly the prefent Inftance we are upon, The Thoughts 
 of the Heart; which none but God can Know by His 
 Natural Inherent Knowledge. But fuppofe God reveals ta 
 me a particular Thought of a Mans Heart, does it there- 
 fore follow that I know it by my own Natural Inherent 
 Knowledge! If I did, I needed not that any fhould tell 
 it me. And that is the Reafon given in the Text to (hew 
 that this Knowledge of Chri/Ps was his Natural Inherent 
 Knowledge, becaufe it is faid, He needed not that any (hould 
 teftifie of Man , for He knew what was in Man. If His 
 knowing what was in Man, was by Revelation, He 
 not only needed, but it was Abfolutly neceffary that fome 
 Ihould teftifie to Him of Man, I hope there is fome 
 Difference 'twixt this and Elijba's knowing what the King 
 of Syria fpoke in his Bed-chamber (2. Kings 6. 12.) 
 which this Author makes a Parallel Place, to this 
 of Job. 2. 24, 25. for firft Eltfba might have had 
 Intelligence from fome about the Kjng ; which was 
 the thing that the Kjng apprehended, and thought 
 nothing Miraculous in it. But fuppofe God told Eltjha. 
 Therefore Elijha needed that fome fhould Teftify of 
 What the Kjng faid. And therefore it can be no Pa- 
 rallel to that of our Saviour, who did not need that 
 any ftiould Teftify to Him, even of the Thoughts of Mens 
 Hearts, for He not only Knew this or that Thought, 
 and that when it was Told him ; But He knew all 
 Mens thoughts, what ever was in man. Without need of 
 any to declare this to Him. That is, without Revelati- 
 on, which cannot be faid of any Prophet, or any Crea- 
 ture. And therefore this Personal Inherent Knowledge 
 of Chri&*s, is put in oppofition to Revelation, Contrary 
 to this vain Defence of our Historian. 
 
 F SOC.
 
 The third VIAL G V E. 
 
 iao SOC. But our Author quotes Rev. i. i. The 
 
 tion of Jefits Chrift, which God gave to him, to fherv unto 
 His Servants. And what need God Reveal any thing 
 to Chrift, if He knew all things} 
 
 CHR. This is fpoken of Chrift as Maa. Secondly it is 
 not faid that God did Reveal it to Chrift, but gave it to 
 Chrift to Reveal to others. That is, gave Commiffiov to 
 Chrift to Reveal it to John, & c. which does not imply 
 that Chrift did not know k before. 
 
 80C. But the Defence of this Hi ft. fays, who can 
 give to God? 
 
 CHR. Chrift as M* receives all from God: Which 
 this Author could not but know to be the Christian Do- 
 ftrin, and therefore; it was Frivolous in him to urge it, 
 without farther Reafons, as an Argument againft the 
 Chriftian Do&rin. 
 
 (23.) The third Text he quotes out of the Romans is,c. 
 10. 1(2,. The fame Lord over a$ is Rich unto all that call 
 ufon Him. 
 
 p. rao. SOC. This and what follows is fpofc$a of God and 
 not of CbriK. 
 
 CHR. The Contrary, isnioft Evident; from the 4th. 
 
 verfe. The Afottle is tre&tiflg wholly of our Lord Jffes 
 
 to. 6. Chritty and making Him the object ofi our Faith, as He 
 
 ^!'' was under the Law, for He applies Deut. ^o. 12. Ex- 
 
 prefly to Chri& ; aad fays r thaf is the- word of Faith which 
 
 rve Preach, That if thou. Covfejs with 'thj Mouth, the. Lor <L 
 
 Je/as, and believe thtfGvd raifad HIM- whajofmt Believeth 
 
 on HIM- ?. the fame: Lord over. dl*,is .Riah' unto all that: 
 ci-tt Hpon HIM for wbofoever fhull call upon tbz Name 
 
 of the Lordjbati'-befaved. How then {halt they call oo HIM 
 
 How fb aft they, believe in HIM of whom they have not heard, ? 
 And, how fesM they hear without a Preacher ? Here you-fee the 
 fame HIM i* carry M through all thefe verfes. And the 
 Jipoftle exprefly applies to this HIM Joel. 2. 32. W'hofoever 
 (hull call upon the Name of the Lord &c. which is applicable: 
 
 to
 
 The tbirJ DIALOG V B. 57 
 
 to none but God. And therefore it is certain that Cbrifl is 
 the Lord here fpoke of. The Jews fad heard of God 
 
 before ; and therefore the Apoflle cou'd not (ay Of 
 
 whom they have not heard, but in Relation to Chrift. 
 Who was not rightly underftood by the Jens, who did 
 not apprehend what Mofes and the Prophets had wrote 
 of HIM, and therefore they needed a Preacher to explain 
 Him to them. 
 
 Your Author cannot deny all the Hims in this Chapter 
 before your Text, to belong to Chrift^, But in his old 
 fhort way, he excepts the Him in the i2th verfe, and 
 fo forward, and the Bufinefs is done ! tho' the Dif- 
 courfe goes as continu'dly on as before, and (peaks of 
 the fame Him, without any Difcrimination, or leaft 
 Mark that he is bringing in any other Him. Which 
 would not only be wrong Senfe, but it would be an 
 cxprefs Deceit to ufe fuch an unfeen ihifting of Per- 
 fans in an Argument, as has been faid before. But 
 we gbon. 
 
 (^24.) i. Cor. 6, 9. Tour Body .is the Temple of the 
 Holy Ghofl. 2 Cor. 6. 16. T<? are the Temples of the 
 Living God. 
 
 SOC. The Holy Ghofl or Spirit being the Infpirtti* . , 
 
 L ~ / . r r -. ,. o . Ji _, aift. y. 121 
 
 on and Power ot- bod, the lame Bodies that are Tem- 
 ples of the we, muft needs be Temples alfo of the 
 Other. 
 
 CHR. Firft it is Abfurd and Illogical to fay, the 
 Temple of an Infyiration. Temples belong to Perfons. 
 But in the next place, you make a Difference 'twixt 
 the S fir it and God, They are the one and the Other. 
 And in other Places you make them the felf-fame thingj, 
 and no Difference 'twixt them at all, as I have often 
 obferv'd before. 
 
 (25.) i Cor. 10. 9. Neither let us tempt Ckrift, *s 
 fowe of them alfo tempted. 
 
 F 2 SOQ.
 
 3 8 The third &IALQGV E. 
 
 SOC. It fhould be neither let u.s tempt GOD. But fince 
 the former is the received reading of the Church; OUE 
 Author has not Authority fufficient to Countsrbal- 
 lance that, therefore he gives you another Anfmr. 
 122 He fays that Emitting the Reading in the Engliflj B/- 
 bles, yet the fenfe will be, let us not temft CHRIST, 
 as the Ifrae/ites tempted GOD in the Wilder nefs. 
 
 CHR. But he muft confefs that this is plain Ad- 
 ding to the Word of God ; for we muft not add words 
 to the Text, upon pretence of keeping to the Senfe. 
 But does he not bring fome very extraordinary Reafbn 
 to Support this Opinion of his ? 
 
 SOC. Not one word, but that Murmuring again ft God, 
 or Chrift, is. tempt ing them. 
 
 CHR. Then he gives us leave to proceed. 
 
 (26.) 2 Cor. 8. 9. It is faid, That Chrift, thd* He 
 WAS Rith 9 yet for your fakes He became Poor. When 
 was it that Chrift rvas Rich, and became Poor ? If 
 He had no Being before He was born of the Vir- 
 
 *ifi.*i*l- SOC. The fenfe is, Tho 1 He might have litfd 
 Rich. 
 
 CHR. But the Text fays, that He WAS Rich. And 
 we . muft take your Authors word, as formerly, 
 that the meaning is, ^ not that He was Rich, but 
 only He might have been fo, if He wo'fd. 
 
 SOC. The Defence of the Htft. c.: 9. p. 51. gives 
 another Anfrver, viz. that ifrltn^fu^w does not fignifie 
 to become Poor, but to be Poor*, 
 
 CHR. He only fays fo. Which he wpu'd have to 
 over-ballance the Learning of all the TranJUtors of our 
 TZible. But in the next place, the flrefs does not lie 
 upon the word Poor, but upon the word Rich. We 
 all know Chrift was Poor ? but the Queftion is when it 
 was that the He was Rich. 
 
 SOC.
 
 Tie third DIALOGUE. 
 
 SOC. He fays, the Senfe of the place is this', TV 
 Chrif was Rich and Glorious, by 'reafon of the Author iy 
 *nd Power Conferred, on Him : Tet He was witting to lead 
 a, Poor Life, &c. 
 
 CHR. In this Senfe, Chrift was never Poor, for He 
 was always Rich in Authority. And a man that has 
 Authority, can never be Poor, in this Senfe. Poverty 
 and Riches may be taken in many enfes. There is 
 Rich and Poor in Eloquence, in Beauty, in Courage, in 
 Senfe, in Authority, and in Moneys And if when you 
 fpeak of any of thefe, you make jiot your difcourfe 
 proceed of the fame, you argue Sophijlically, and no 
 man can Underftand you. This is the Defence of 
 your Hiftory, and has help'd him much. This PUy 
 is not worth the Candle. Let us Difpatch. 
 
 (27.) His Anfwer to 2. Cor, 12. 8. 9. is this, that p . 12 , 
 the Power of Chrift refling on the Apoftle was only, 
 that Chrift Interceded for that Power to reft on him. 
 That is to fay, if I begg an Eft ate from the Kjng, 
 for you, it is therefore my Eftate which you Polfets! 
 And this fhall be the way oi fpeaking in this Text, , * 
 and in the next too. 2 Cor. i j, 14 where The Grace, 
 of our Lord Jefas Chrift,. is not His Grace, but another s 12 , 
 Grace, which He only beggs for u$.. 
 
 But there is another extraordinary thing irr this* Text. 
 For it plainly Diftinguifoes, fays our Author, Chrift and 
 the H. Ghoft from God. Now they are plainly Diftin- 
 ' guifljed; but in Anfwer to Job. i. i. they muft not 
 be Diftinguifted at all. Gal. i. i, r-2. Paul an. Apottle, 
 not of men, neither by men, but by Jejus Chrift, and (29., 
 God the Father / neither received it of Man, nei- 
 ther was I taught it, but by Revelation of Jtfus 
 Chritt. 
 
 SOC. Paul rightly denies he is rn&de an Apottle by 
 becaufe he WAS madv one by Jefus Chritt, who 
 
 in
 
 d o The Mrd DIALOGUE. 
 
 i 
 
 in All things acted by the Spirit And Directions of 
 God. 
 
 CHR. Did not the Apottles aft by the Spirit and 
 ' V t 24 ' Directions of God, when they chofe Matthias into the 
 Room of Judas-, and Separated Barnabai and Saul for 
 the work whereunto God had called them ? 
 
 SOC. Yes certainly ; for it is exprefly faid, that the 
 H. GhoH bad them do it. 
 
 CHR. Did they therefore in that, receive Commiflion 
 from Men? 
 
 SOC. Yes, for it is faid, that tfay laid their htnk on 
 Vc , them, and fent them, 
 
 CHR. Then mens afting by the Spirit and Dbeftions 
 of God does not hinder that fuch adions are faid to 
 be done by fah Me. For Example, Matthias was E- 
 le&ed by tbe Eleven Apoftles and Barnabas and Saul were 
 Separated by the Church. 
 
 And therefore it wou'd follow, in this Senie, that 
 St. Paul did not argue Rightly, as our Author fays 
 he did, when he denyM himfelf to be made an Apoftk 
 by Man, becaufe he was made one by a Man who Acted 
 by the Spirit and Directions of God, 
 
 But his meaning is plainly this, That he did not re- 
 ceive his Commiflion from, that is, by the mediation of 
 Men, but Immediatly from Gd. 
 
 And if Chrift were not more than Man, and Confi- 
 der'd as fuch in this Text, the Apoftles words cannot be 
 made Confonant, efpecially as Interpreted by our Author. 
 Tertullian (adverf. Prax. . 27, and 28. p. $17^ proves 
 Chrift to be both God and Man. Ex Carne homo, ex 
 fpiritu Deus, and then proves the Diftintfion 'twixt Him 
 and the Father, and Quotes this Text, among others, to 
 (hew that tho' He was God 9 yet He was DijlinguiflfA 
 from the father. 
 
 (30.) But let us (ee what *rt he will find to efcape 
 Phil. 2. 5, 6, 7, 8. where it is faid, That Cbrijt being
 
 The third DIALOGUE. 
 
 in the Form of God thought it not Robbery to be 
 with God, c. 
 
 SOC. In the Fvrm of God, that is, being made like God, p< 
 and namely by a Communication to Him of Divine and 
 Miraculous Power over Difeafes, Devils, the Grave, the 
 Wind, the Seas, &TC. 
 
 CHR. A Communication of this Divine and Miraculous 
 Power was given likewife to Prophets, Apojtles &c. were 
 they therefore in the Form of God? 
 
 Every Body that underftands Terms, knows what is 
 meant by Matter and Form. The Form of a thing is 
 its Effence, not its Shadow or Likenefi : And therefore 
 whatever is in the Form of God t . is. of His Effence, and 
 confequently muft be God. 
 
 And this is the Inference the Apoftle makes. That 
 becaufe Chrift Was in the Form of God 9 therefore 
 He was Equal to God : And that this was not . any Ar- 
 rogance or Rrefumptiofr in Chrift, for being in the Form 
 of God, He was Natural God. 
 
 But if Chr-if were Originally a Creature, as the Sod" 
 nians wou'd have Him, and advanc'd to the Divine He- 
 nour> or a made God, as they Word it, then indeed, it 
 cou'd not be Excufed from a Great Robbery^ Prefump- 
 tion and Blafphemy for Him to pretend to be Equal to> 
 God. 
 
 And the ApojUe in this Text, feems to have forefeen 
 and obviated the Socmian Hcrefy ; For he does not only 
 call Chrift, God; but tells how He is God. Not by Gift* 
 or Donation, or that He was made God. That is a Con->. 
 tradition in the very Terms ; But that He was in the- 
 Form and Effence of God^ and fo Equal to God, which 
 cou'd not be pretended to, without Robbery, any other 
 way. . 
 
 Ire/uas (adverf. H*r. 1. i. c. 2. p, 51.) Quotes the 
 
 loth 'ver.. of this Chap, which immediatly follows the 
 
 words you have Quoted, and is an Inference from them, 
 
 * viz*
 
 The third DIALOGUE. 
 
 viz, that At the tfame of Jefus every Kjtee foould bow, 
 and Defcribing what fort of Adoration it was which 
 was to be paid to Chrift, he fays, 
 
 ,- n u L TT- Ut Chnfto Jefu Domino 
 
 that every Kjiee jhouU bow to Him noftro et Deo, & Saiva- 
 
 as to our Lord* and God* and Saviour tori, & Regi, fecundum 
 
 i is: nff . .' pUcitwn ratrisinvifibi- 
 
 a.na i\J"g* lisonvneGcnu curvetur. 
 
 Clemens Alexandr. (Admonit. ad Gent. p. 7.) having 
 faid how God had perfuaded Men many ways, by Pro- 
 phets, by Miracles, &c. at laft fays He Empty'd Himfelf, 
 and if you will not Believe the Prophet s, Behold the 
 Lord Himfelf fhall fpeak to thee : Who being in the form 
 of God, and thought, it not Robbery to be Equal with God ; 
 But the merciful God 6 piAci* tfyjMw so$, Empty* 
 
 Himfelf, defiring to fave Man. And now the Logos, the 
 Word -Himfelf fpeaks to thee, being griev'd for thy In- 
 fidelity. .Thus Clemens. 
 
 Ttrtulltin (adverf. Prax. c. 7. p. $04,,) quotes this 
 Text Phil. 2. 6. as proving Christ, whom he there- 
 calls the Word, to be God. And f adverf. Marcion. 
 1. 2. c. 16. p. 389.) he fays, Qtii Credimus- - we 
 who Believe that God dwelt on the Earth, and took upon 
 Him the Form of a Servant, that He might fave wan 
 Are far from their Opinion who wottd have God take care 
 of nothing. 
 
 Origen (in Matt. p. 357. of Tom. i.) purfuing his 
 Allegory 'twixt Chritt and the Church, fays that Chrift 
 being the Husband, for His Spoufe the Church left his 
 Father %v iv&n when He beheld, or injofd His Prejenct 
 when He was in the Form of Gcd, IBID p. 374. he 
 fays that Chrift, when He was in the Form of God, and 
 thought it not Robbery to be Equal to God, was made a 
 Child, &c. and (in Johav, p. 415. of Tom. 2.) he fays 
 TO aV0^7T ww TO "Ivcr* the Humanity of Chrip was made %v /uiot 
 TpyAo^a one with the WORD", He being exalted, who thought 
 it no Robbery to be equal with God', But the WORD re- 9 
 
 waining
 
 The third DIALOGUE. 43 
 
 w T&f ISict) v^>t in its own Altitude or Chrift in 
 Hts Humanity being exalted to the Dignity of the WORD, 
 which He had before with Gvd, The WORD being now 
 bo'.h God and Man Qeos >OJPS wa'yGpwTos GOD tbe WORD 
 being MAN, &c. 
 
 But Pray, what fays your Author to that part of 
 the Text, that C/wift thought /> not Robbery to be equal 
 with God. 
 
 SOC. He Renders it thus, Who Committed not Rob- 
 bery by equalling Himfelf to God. i. e, did Not Rob God 
 of His Honour by Arrogating to be God, or Equal to 
 God. 
 
 CHR. That was Anfwer'd like an Oracle /"for it 
 bears two meanings, either that Chrif did not Ar- 
 rogate to Himfelf to be God, or Equal to God ; and 
 therefore did not Rob God of His Honour : or other- 
 wife, it may be Underftood, that tho v He did Arrogate 
 to Himfelf to be God, or Equal to God, yet this, was 
 not a Robbing God of His Honour. 
 
 In the laft Senfe, he muft either mean, that Chrifl is 
 God-, or that it is no Difhonour to God to have a 
 Creature made Equal to Him. In the Fir ft Senfe, no 
 poffible account can be Given, why Chrifl fhould fay, 
 That He did not think it Robbery to be Equal with 
 God : when He intended to fay, That He did think it 
 Robbery, and that He would not be Guilty of fuch Rob- 
 bery, by Equalling Himfelf with God. 
 
 SOC. Therefore inftead of not thinking it Robbery, 
 our Author puts in Committed not Robbery, by equal- 
 ling Himfelf with God. 
 
 CHR. But does he alleadge that there is any fault in 
 our Tranjlation ? Or that thefe words, Thought it, are 
 not in the Greek? or that the Greek word does mean 
 both Thought, and Committed ? Or that Thought and 
 Committed are the fame thing ? 
 
 G " SOC.
 
 44 The third DIALOGUE-. 
 
 SOC. No. He alleadges none of thefe things ; only in 
 the Repeating the Text, he puts in the word Committed, 
 and leaves out the word Thought. 
 
 CHR. Hoping it would not be perceiv'd. And fohe 
 would get fome fort of Glofs put upon this Text, which 
 other wife admitted of ho Subterfuge, nor room for 
 Witt; for the Greek word is vyva-ocro which does not 
 flgnify Committed, but Thought, ^<7/ro v% afTra^^v, He did 
 not efteem or think it any Robbery to be Equal with 
 God. 
 
 Again. If Chrifl was nothing but a Servant, and no 
 more than a man, how can it be faid, that he took up- 
 on Him the form of A Servant, and WAS found in fafbi- 
 p, 129, on AS A man? Our Author do's not give any good Ac- 
 count of this, he fays only, that he was like A Servant, 
 and like other men. But that does in no wife fill the 
 expreffion of the Text. The Form of a Servant which 
 Chrifl is here faid to take, was his taking upon Him 
 our Fle[h, which appears from the following words. 
 He took upon Him the form of A Servant , and was made 
 in the Likenefs of men, and being jound in Fafttion AS A 
 #fe# -And this Form of a Servant, is compar'd with 
 the Form \ of God, in which He was before He took 
 upon Him the Form of a Servant. The fame Word is 
 ufed in both Branches of the Comparifon, and therefore 
 muft be taken in the fame Senfe, unlefs you would 
 
 make the Comparifon Fallacious lv pojxpy ga J-mp^wy 
 
 #9p$w <y'Ay Aa/&yy, Being in . the Form of God- . 
 
 He took upon Him the Form of . A Servant, Therefore 
 He was as truely God as he was Man. As much in 
 the Perm, of God, as in the Form of a Servant. And 
 Secondly, He was God, before He was Man. For ob- 
 ferve, it is not faid that He took upon Him the Form of 
 God, becaufe He was always in that Form, and fp could 
 not take it. For taking a thing fuppofes me to exiil 
 before I take it. Therefore the Text is worded, Being
 
 The third DIALOGUE. 45. 
 
 in the Form of God, that is, always exiftiflg in that, 
 He afterwards took the Form of a Servant. Now if' 
 like other men, He had no Exigence before his Corpora/ 
 GenerAtion, it cou'd not be faid, that He took Flefh up- 
 on Him, or that he was made Flefh. We do not fay, 
 fo of any man. If you ask a Man when did you take 
 Flefh upon you ? When were you made Flefh ? He will 
 Anfwer, I never took Flefh, for I was always Flefh. 
 Therefore that Expreffion of Chrifts taking upon him 
 the Form of a Servant, is not fill'd, by faying, He was 
 like a Servant. No. Being God, He was m&de Man. 
 But in your Senfe, it muft have been worded, .being 
 man, He took upon Him to become a Servant. That had 
 been proper : for by that He muft be fuppos'd to be a 
 Man, before he was a Servant. And till He was a 
 Man, He cpuld not take upon him to be a Servant, So 
 He could riot take upw Him our Flefh, unlefs he had 
 been fomething before. 
 
 The Def. of this Hift. c. 9. p. 51, repeats this ob- 
 jection, Viz. Howdid He take this Form upon Him (which 
 fignifies his own free and Voluntary choice)when He 
 did not take it, but was made So ? 
 
 Now what Anfwer can you Imagine he gives to 
 this ? What ? fays he, when the Apoftk fajs, that: Chrifl 
 took upon Him the Form of a Servant ; muft we fy that , 
 He did not ? Is it not a plain Contradiction to the Apoftle ? 
 This is every word of the Anfwer he gives. Had any 
 of us given the like, he would have found fomething to 
 have call'd us beyond his Familiar and Common Stils 
 of want of Common Senfi, Impudent, Brutal, &c. Which 
 he beftows upon us almoft in every page. For pray tell 
 me, did that objection deny that Chrift took upon Him 
 the Form of a, Servant ? So far from it, that it fuppofes 
 it, and argues from it, that Chrift muft have an Exi- 
 gence before. But it feems all the Stickler could find 
 out in that Objeffiorij was, that it deny'd the Text> that 
 
 G 2 Chrift
 
 He third DIALOGVE. 
 
 Chrifl took upon Him the form of a Servant. Such a quick 
 fight as this was neoeflary to expound the Scriptures 
 Contrary to the whole Chriftiav Church, and the Com* 
 mon afage of words among MAnkind, to bring down My- 
 fteries, and make Profelytes for Socinus. I congratulate 
 with you in your Champion. I Ihould have thought it 
 to hav$ proceeded from his Paflton, or been the Fault 
 of the Primer, but that p. 52. he in other words re- 
 peats it again, and gives the like Anfwer. He putts 
 the Objection, that the Apoflle urging Chips taking upon 
 Him the Form of A Servaat, as an Argument of 
 His Love and Humility, this muft fuppofe a Choice 
 in Chrifl (for who calls it 'Humility in any Man to 
 be Born Poor ? , Does a man ckufe to be Birh ?) there- 
 fore that the Apojllt muft fpezlc of what Cbrifl did be- 
 fore he came into the world, for then it muft be that 
 He made His Choice of Coming into the world, To 
 this our Author replies; That the Apoflle aid not /peak 
 of what Chrifl did _ before He came into the world. And 
 he neither Aafoers one word to the Argument , nor offers 
 any Reafon for his own AfTertion. This is, BettArwi* 
 tbcu Heft-, And ipfe Dixit, in an extraordinary mannar. 
 But Like a wary^.tDifputant, \vjio could Jee the. weak- 
 nefs of his Caufe, inftead of Angering he "falls to obiet- 
 ing. He fays, "That if to '"be in the form of God 
 " fignifies to be the true God, then the Senfe will be 
 " this, Chrifl bein^ the true GW, though^ it not Robbery 
 " to be Equal with the true Go. Which is juR: as if 
 '* one fhould fay^ Leopold who is w/?/--,r, (does not 
 " think it Robbery to be Equ.il wiih the Emperor. Is 
 " it Poflible Ven fliould put fuch a tyiftitig Senfe on 
 " the words of an 'Apoftie ? Thus he. And in return 
 to his Cfffpf&aenti I would ask whether ic be'.Joffi- 
 ble, that he fliould be fo tnflh.'g as to think his 
 
 of Leopold is Parallel to what the Chrifiiws tqach of 
 Cbnjt? He makes Leopitd and the 'Emperor to be the 
 
 fame.
 
 Tie third DlALOGVE. 47 
 
 feme Perfon^ and cannot but know that the {Zhriftiws 
 make Qhrifl to be a Diftind Perfon from His Father. 
 And then from a Ridiculous Comparifon 'twixt the 
 fame Perfon and Himfelf, he thinks he has concluded 
 againft thofe who make a Comparifon 'twixt two Per- 
 fow. But now to bring his Iwftance nearer to the Truth: 
 Suppofe Leopold {hould take his Son into the P*rr- 
 nerfoip of the Empire (as was done feveral times among 
 the Roman Emperors, and as David crown'd Solomon 
 in his own life timej and fuppofe this Son, out of 
 Love to a Company of Condemned wretches fhould take 
 their Guilt, and Condition upon Him, and make Him- 
 felf one of them; might not this -L0-r/<? x and Condefcen- 
 tion of his he exprefs'din words like thofe in this Text? 
 That he who was of the Same Nature with Leopold, 
 being his Natural Son, and therefore Equal to him in 
 Nature, and likewife joint with him in the Govern- 
 ment, in both which refpefts of Nature, and Authority, 
 he thought; it no Robbery to be Equal to the Emperor, 
 that a Perfon of his Dignity fhould take upon him 
 the form of a Servant &c. I Know this 6Vw;/* will not 
 Anfwer in all Points. \ And I would not have chofen it, 
 but that by following my Author, I have fhewn the 
 Dijparity of his Parallel. Laftly, he cannot apprehend 
 bow G^-can be of no Reputation. Anf. When feveral 
 Natures are joyn'd in one Ptrfon, what is proper to any 
 of the Natufts may be afcrib'd to the Perfon ; as has 
 been faid before ; thus Man is faid to Vye, tho' the 
 Soul cannot; to be wr or maimed, which only the Bo- 
 dy can fuffer : And thus it is, that God may be faid to 
 be of no Reputation, to Jbed his blood, to Die, &c 
 Tho' that can befall Chrifts Human< Nature only 3 
 The Godhead is Jmpaffible^but the Perfit y who is God, 
 may fuffer. 
 
 ; v 
 
 C3 1 )
 
 4 8 . The third. DIALOG V E. , 
 
 (.51.) I will here fubjoin other expreffions like to 
 
 that of ChriJIs being in the Form c God. Col. i. 15. 
 
 The Image of the Inviptte God. Heb. I. ?. The exprejs 
 
 Image of his Perfon. Or of his Subfftence. HTPOSTASEOS. 
 
 *'#. P,JJO. $QC 9 Man is call'd the Image* of God. 
 
 CHR. True. But do you not perceive a Remarka- 
 ble Difference 'twixt thefe Appellations given to Chrift, 
 and what is faid of Manl 
 
 A Picture or a Shadow, is a Mans Iw^e, but not 
 in the fame Refped as his Son, who is the Exprefs 
 Image of his Perfon, becaufe he partakes of his Na- 
 ture. 
 
 SOC. This is notorious. But our Author Anfwers 
 again, that this proves Chrift not to be God, becaufe 
 the Image cannot be that thing whofe Image it is. 
 
 CHR. This is ob jetting inftead of Anfoering to the 
 Text. And to this has been reply 'd already, in the 
 words of the above quoted Text. Heb. i. j. That the 
 Son is the Image of the Father's Perfon, or Subfftence, 
 Hypoftafeos ; not of His Sttbftance or Nature, of which 
 the Son partakes Equally with the Father. And by the 
 word God, in this Text, The Father is meant, as in 
 many other places of Scripture, which has been obferv'd 
 before. 
 
 jf///f. Martyr. (Dial, cum Tryphon. ^fud. p. 285.) ex- 
 plains how Chrift was the Image of God. Viz. Not 
 on Account of His Corporal Generation, but of His Eter- 
 nal Generation from the Father, by which he was 
 with the Father before all Creatures. 
 
 "I"* * ' 9 " > \ \ Of'' ' 
 
 1 TO TO . TW CJ<Ti Ct/OT T TTO-T^pJ 7TppAJ?DJ' OifTflMCC, 
 
 (52.) But now to prove that Chrift had a Being 
 before his Incarnation, what words cou'd you invent 
 more full and Pofitive than thefe. Col. i. 15. 16.? 
 
 Chrift the firft-born of every Creature, for by Him were 
 
 all things Created that are in Heaven, and that are in 
 
 Earth,
 
 The thircf DIALOGUE. 45, 
 
 Earth, Vifthle, and Invifible, Whether they be Thrones^ or 
 Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers, a/I thivgs were Cre- 
 ated by Him And for Him : and He is before all things, and 
 by Him all things Conpft. 
 
 SOC. By Firtf-born, is meant the Fir ft -born from thentt.?. iji. 
 Dead. That is, Cbrift was the Firjl Creature Rofe from 
 the Dead. 
 
 CHR. That is very well ! But pray tell me, what do 
 you think of this Argument, By Chrift all things were 
 Created: therefore Chrifl was the Fir ft who Rofe from 
 the Dead ? 
 
 SOC. It is flat non-fenfe. But what do you bring 
 it in for. 
 
 CHR. That is the Senfe your Inter fret at ion of this 
 Text puts upon the Apojlle. For that is the Proof he 
 brings why Chrifl is the Fir ft -born of every Creature, be- 
 caufe by him all things were Created. 
 
 SOC. By Him, there, fhould not be underfiood of 
 Christ, but of God. 
 
 CHR. How will that mend the Confequence? By 
 God were all things Created, therefore Chrift was the 
 Fir ft, who Rofe from the Dead? 
 
 SOC. That is full as Great Nonfenfe as the other. 
 But why may not Fir f -Born mean Fir ft -Born from 
 the Dead here as well as Ver. 18. Where it is faid 
 that He is the Firft-Born from the Dead. 
 
 CHR. Becaufe in ver. 18. It is plainly faid fo. 
 And ver. 2$. it is faid' quite otherwife. For FirsJ- 
 Bor from the Dead, and Firft-Born of . every Crea- 
 ture are two quite Different things. And the Afoftte 
 in thefe two places fpeaks of things very Different. 
 For Verfe 18. He is f peaking of Chnft as Head of the 
 Church, and (as the fulfilling of that Chara&er) of His 
 Reptrretfiou, in which Senfe he calls Him the Firjt- 
 Born fori^th' Dead. He is the. Head of the Body*, 
 the Chtt'cb ', Who is,- the Firft-Born from the Dead. 
 
 But
 
 The third J) IALOGV E. 
 
 But Verfe i$. He is (peaking of Chrift in a quite Dif- 
 ferent Capacity, Viz, As the Creator of. all things, or 
 that Great Inftrument by which Gid created all 
 things, the Word, by whom all things were made : 
 In which Senfe He was Prior to all Creatures, as the 
 Caufe is before its Effect. And He was Bora of 
 God Was His true Image, in His Natural and 
 therefore Eternal Generation^ before any Creature was 
 Born in the Courfe of Creatioa,, who are Images of God 
 too, in their feverai Degrees ; .And in this Senfe it is, 
 that He is faid to be The Image of God, per Eminentiam. 
 The Fir ft born of every Creature. And this is the Proof 
 the Apojlle brings why He is the Image of the fovifible 
 God, the Firft Born of Every Creature, For by him all 
 
 things were Created 
 
 SOC. But our Author fays, that by him is meant, of 
 Cod and not of Chrift. 
 
 CHR. He Says it, but he offers nothing to Prove, it, 
 nor to reconcile the Text even to Common Senfe in 
 bis way of Interpretation. He would have the -A^oftle 
 prove, that Chrift was the fir ft rofc from the Dead, be- 
 caufe God made all things ! 
 
 The word in the Original is I** In him aft things 
 were Created. Which yet is rightly Rendered in the 
 Englifli, For, that is Bj Him. God Created all things 
 In Chrifl, or By Chrift, thefe terms are Synoriimous, 
 and fo ufed in the Scripture. But your Author would 
 rather have it render d For, Viz. that all things were 
 Created for Chrift ; becaufe he would have more La- 
 titude by that word to avoid Chrips Preexiftence to 
 all Creatures^ which is unavoidable by the word, By or 
 In ; for if all things were created > Him or In Him ; 
 of Neceffity He . muft be before them. But our Author 
 thinks they might be Created For Him, that is, for His 
 Sake, or with refpett to Him, and that this might be 
 before He was born. 
 
 But
 
 The third DIALOGUE. ji 
 
 But in this Text all thefe ways are apply'd to Chrift y 
 viz. That all things were Created In Him, and By 
 Him, and For Him. Will you add to this (tho' I think 
 it is not neceflary; the Text does fo plainly {hew its' 
 own meaning) that Ja/t. Mart. (Dial, cum Tryph. jtid. 
 p, 284.) exprefly applys all this to Chrift, as being the 
 lVifdom t Pomr, Word, Son of the Father, by which He 
 made all Creatures. Ter tullian (adverf. Mar don. 1. 5. c 
 19. p. 484, and 485.) fays, Si non Chriftus Primo-geni* 
 tus> If Chrift he not the Firf-bo+n of every Creature^ 
 AS the WORD of the Creator by whom all things were made, 
 and, without which, nothing WAS made, if a/I things were 
 not Created by Him that are in Heaven, and that are in 
 the Earthy vipble and invifible, whether they be Thrones, or 
 Dominions, or Principalities or Powers ; if all things were 
 not Created by Him, and in Him, The Apoflle woifd 
 not have fatd fo fUinly, THAT HE IS BEFORE 
 
 ALL THINGS And How is He before all, if he be 
 
 not the Fir fl -Born of Creatures ? If not the WORD of 
 the Creator ? How can He be proved to be before a!/, who 
 appeared after aft? Who could Kjtorv Him to be before, 
 who did not Kjiow Him to he at all* And Origen (in 
 tyrem. Horn. i. p. 58. of i Tom.) quoting this Text 
 Col. i. 15. he proves from tlience the Antiquity of Cbrift 
 and from his being the Firft-Born of every Creature, He 
 Infers that He is for that Reafon Trpgcr^Tg^s the An- 
 cignt which wou'd have been no Argument, if it had 
 been meant of his Refurrettion. And 6'. Cyprian [adverf. 
 Jud. c. i. p. $2.) quotes this Text Coll. i. i^. among 
 many others, proving Chrifl to be the Fir ft- Begotten, ai d 
 the Wifdom of God by which He made *U things 
 
 SOC. Will you hear more of my Authors Anfwers to 
 
 this Text ? The Firft-Born, that is, moft beloved By 
 
 Him were all things Created, thatjis, modefd, not Created, p. 132, 
 He is before all things, that is, in worth and Excellency. 
 
 H By
 
 i The third DIALOGV E. 
 
 By Him all things Confift, that is, by bis wife Govern- 
 p- 133- went, they fall into no Diforder or Confupon. 
 
 And he fays fome of the Fathers faid thefe things upon 
 this Text. 
 
 CHR. They might fo. And thefe things are inferr'd 
 
 from this Text. For He that is before all things in 
 
 Exiflence, is like wife fo in Worth and Excellency; And He by 
 
 whom all things do conjifl, that is, are prefer v'd in their 
 
 Beings, muft needs Govern fo wifely . as to keep them 
 
 from falling into Diforder and Coniufion. And the 
 
 Firft'Born of God, muft be moft beloved. And therefore 
 
 His Beloved Soft is the Epithet of Chritt in the Gof- 
 
 pel, as well as His Firft Begotten- or only Begotten. I 
 
 fay all thefe things might be rightly inferr'd from this 
 
 Text, from the Literal , meaning of the Text. And 
 
 the Fathers might improve thus upon this Tsxt, 
 
 ef.aift.* The Defender of our Hilt, has a great deal upon this 
 
 'p.i2,adi7y^ 4 g ut f confus'd, and fuch. wild Arguments, as if 
 
 he play'd booty, and meant to betray his Caufe p. \6. 
 
 He proves that Chrift was the Fir si-Born only becaufe he* 
 
 had the Ptehemmence, which, fays he, is often expreff'd by 
 
 the Firft-Born, and therefore concludes, that ChriS being 
 
 eall'd the Firfl-Born, only Preheminenee was thereby meant 
 
 and not that He was Firft Born. From p. 13. to id! 
 
 He Proves, that by thefe words, the Firft-born, by whom 
 
 nil things were Created, the Creation of the wortt cannot 
 
 be meant, becaufe, fay she, this Ftrjl-Bw* was JefltS) who 
 
 was a WAN. When it is anfweted (p. 14.) that He 
 
 was God too. He Denies it, and that is all his Proof, 
 
 and asks where is He call'd God in Scripture ? As if 
 
 he had never lieard of //before. His fecond Proof is, 
 
 that there ' is r<o warrant from Scripture for it,. I mean 
 
 fays he, that the Scripture does not fay in exprefs frords 
 
 that Chrift Created Heave* and Earth, He will have 
 
 the words Ht*ve or Earth in, as you have heard 
 
 upon Joh. i. 3. Ytt that it felf does not do againft this 
 
 Text
 
 'The third DIALOGUE. 53 
 
 Text Co/, i. 16. for there they are exprefly nam'd. By, 
 Him were all things Created, that are in Heaven, and 
 that are in Earth. Ay, but not Heaven and Earth it 
 felf, Replies our Defender. And the all things of which 
 he fpeaketh, he Limiteth to all Thrones Arid Doininions^ 
 Principalities and Powers, Vifible and Invisible ; Thefe 
 are the Heavsvfy Powers {poke of; and I wifh our Author 
 would tell us which of thefe are VifiUe. But thefe 
 are fo far from being a Limitation, as this Author would 
 have them, that it is plain they are but an Enumeration 
 of a Part. For Vipble is not put after thefe Hear 
 ^enly IP overs, as this Gentleman flily fets it, the 
 better to ferve his turti, but after the Earth , He 
 Created all things in Heaven and Earth, vifible And invisible* 
 And thefe Heavenly Powers are reckoned as fome of the 
 Inbifible things, and immediatly after them it is added 
 again, that all things were Created by Him and for Him. 
 His third Reafon is, that Christ's Creating all things is 
 not faid in Eph* i. 20. 2!, 22. and therefore if cannot 
 be meant in Col. i. 16. nay he fays, it would be Non- 
 fenfe in the Apottle to fpeak of it in the Col. having 
 faid in the Epb, that God fet Him (Chrift) above the 
 Principalities, &c. as if Chrift in His Human Nature 
 might not be Exalted above them, and yet, as God be 
 their Creator. Or as if this Author had never heard 'that 
 the Chriftians faid thus. But having called this Abfurd, 
 Ridiculous^ and Nonfenfe ; he ends with no other Reafon ; 
 His Dullnefs or Perverfenefs is infuperable, for it being 
 objected to him, p. i j. That if by the Creation here, only 
 the new Creation by the Gofpel be meant, how Chrift fhoiild be 
 the Firft-born of every new Creature y that is, of every Good 
 ftfan, feeing there were Good men before Chrift, and fo He 
 was not the Firfl-born in that Senfe. All that our Author fays 
 to this, is, that He was the firfl-born of every new^#- 
 geltcal Creature, which was not at all apprehending the 
 ^Difficulty, for it Excludes all before Cbrifl. But to return 
 
 H 2 from
 
 The third D I A L G V E. 
 
 from the Defender to the Historian, none denies but all 
 things were mode^d by Chrift: And that it might be 
 inferr'd even from this Text: But that therefore, they 
 were not Created by Him, remains yet for our Author 
 to prove : Or to ihew us where Athantfus or any of the 
 Fathers he Quotes, fays any fuch thing. He Quotes not 
 the PUces of thefe Fathers. He loves to fight in the 
 Dark But to fhew him that tho' this Text may be 
 apply'd to the Reformation made by Chrift in the Gofpel, 
 which our Author means by Modelling : Yet that it is 
 not only truly , but chiefly and literally meant of Chri&s 
 Creating all things. Firft, the literal meaning" of the 
 XT^M whieh is here uied, is, Crtare, to Create. Se- 
 condly, The Creatures which are here chiefly faid to be 
 Created by Chrijl, are the Powers of Heaven, which did 
 not fall, and fo came not under the Redemption of the 
 Goffel-ModeU, of which our Author would have all this 
 to be meant. By Him were alL things Created that are 
 
 in Heaven Thrones, Dominations, Principalities, Powers, 
 
 &c. Our Author fays, that by all this is meant no more 
 than that Christ became the Head of the Angels. And 
 this was a new Modelling of the Angels, and Modelling is 
 Creating, or Creating is Modelling, &c., But this Author 
 might have obferv'd, that the Apoftle in this Place fpeaks 
 firft of Creating^ and then of Modelling. Of Creating verf. 
 1 6, and 17. And then of Modelling verf, iS-viz. of Chriils 
 becoming the Head of the Church, He, (Chrift) is the 
 Head of the Body, the Church. There the Angels are not 
 mentioned, He became not their Head by His Incarnation* 
 He was fo before. For He took not on Him the Afa... 
 tare of Angels, but He took the Seed of Abraham, and fo 
 by His 1'icnr nation became the Head of Mankind in a 
 more fpecial manner. And after this verf. 18. where the 
 Apoftle begins to fpeak of Chrift's Modelling the Church^ 
 there is not a word more of Creating : He had done 
 fpeaking of the one, of Chrift's Creating* wherein he 
 
 mentions.
 
 The third RIALOGVE. 
 
 mentions the Angtls ; and then he goes on to fpeak upon 
 another Point, viz. How Chrift became the Head of the 
 Church, wherein he dees not mention -the Angels, nor 
 fpeaks any more of Creating : And yet this Author would 
 Confound all thefe together, and make Modelling, and 
 Creating the fame thing, I told you before upon Jok 
 1 6. 15. That by this method thofe who hold that the 
 World was from Eternity might Anfoer all the firfir of Gen. 
 to be only a new Modelling and to mean no more than 
 Ovids Metamorphofis. < Indeed it Confounds all Language 
 in the World. And not only the Divinity of the Father^ 
 His Creating the World, or indeed His Being, that them 
 is any God a~t all cannot be fhewn from Scripture, if you 
 will allow this Latitude of Turning and Modelling words 
 from their common and cuftomary Meaning. But we go 
 on. 
 
 ($$.) Golh 2. 9. In Him dive tie th the Fttlnefs of the 
 Godhead bodily. And ye are comf leaf in Him, or ye are. 
 flTd by Him, 
 
 Thus he repeats that Text, wherein- he leaves out a-^/F. P. 
 very material word, nr r All the Fullnefs, or the- whole 
 Fullnefs of the Godhead. 
 
 SOC. He fays that the Fullnefs of the Godhead, is the 
 Fullnefs of the Kjiowledge of the Godhead. And that this 
 was it. which' dwelt in Chrift. 
 
 r, CHR, Both Addition and Subjlraffion in one Tvxt is 
 very hard / to leave out the word All, and put in the 
 word Kjtoivledge. No Text will be able to Stand before 
 
 this. And after all if it fhould not do his bufinefs 
 
 for the Full Knowledge of the Godhead can be in none 
 but God ; becaufe, as faid before, nothing can hold In- 
 /*#/>, but Infnit. And therefore, if *//.the Fullnefs of the 
 Knowledge of God dwells in Chrift, it is as full a Proof 
 of His Godhead, as any can be defir'd. It muft be fome 
 Confcientioufnefs of ,this made the Author leave, the 
 word all out of this Text ; He thought it would break
 
 The third VIALOGVE. 
 
 the force of it a little. For tho' the Fullnefs of the God- 
 head be an Extraordinary Expreffion, and does in Con. 
 iequence imply the whole Fullnefs, yet the word All makes 
 it obvious, and prevents all objections. 
 
 60C. But our Author quotes Eph. 3. 19. Where it is 
 faid, that the (Ephefans) might be filled witi all the 
 Fullnefs of God. 
 
 CHR. The Apojlle there makes it very plain, that 
 he is not fpeaking Literally, or according to the full 
 extent of the Words, the whole Ferfe is this, That ye 
 might l^NOW' the love of Chrift, which paffeth Kjtow- 
 ledge, that ye might be filed with all the fytllnefs of 
 God. Where it is even felf-evident that the Apostle 
 means no more, than a very great Degree of Fullnefs, and 
 Kjmvledge. And it Would be Perverjnefs for any one 
 to Difpute how a man can Kjiorv palt his Knowledge, 
 which is a Contradiction. And in this manner of Ex- 
 freffion it is plain that the Apoftle faw the Contradiction, 
 and therefore intended it Hyperbolical!). And the whole 
 Sentence muft be taken in the fame Senje But it is 
 not fo where one Expreffion of that Sentence is joyn'd 
 with plain words, and in an Argument, as it is in Col. 
 2. 9. ' 
 
 Befides in Eph. 3. 19. the Greek word is l/$, which 
 Signifies in ; that ye may be filled In all the Fullnefs 
 of God. Which is the fame Expreffion with that in 
 our prefent Text Col, 2. 10. And ye are compleat, 
 or Filled in Him. That is, In the Fullnefs of God, 
 we are filed. But it is not faid, that the whole Full- 
 nefs of God dwells in Vs : Or that it dwells in us Bodily, 
 or Substantially ("as our Author fays others do Tranflate 
 it) to Diftinguifh it from Figuratively as it is in Eph. 
 
 3- *9 ( 
 SOC. Our Author fays, that Bodily or SubjtantiAlly means 
 
 DO more than what is oppos'd to the Philofophers Know- 
 ledge
 
 Tie third DIALOGV E. 57 
 
 ledge of God, which was not fo Perfetf as the Kjton* 
 ledge of Chri). 
 
 CHR, Did you ever hear of a Bodily Knowledge before ? 
 Or that that was ever us'd to fignify a more Perfeff 
 Knowledge ? In our way of fpeaking it would fignify a 
 more Grojs and Imperfeff Knowledge ; Knowledge . is al- 
 ways moft Perfeft when it is moft Pure, and Spiritual-, 
 and confequently it is moft Imperfect, the more it grows 
 Bodily. 
 
 SOC. Go on to the next. 
 
 (54.) 2. Their. 2. 1 6. 17. Our Lord, Jefus Chritt com* #//?.p. 13$, 
 fort your hearts and eflabli(h them in tvery Good word 
 and work. 
 
 SOC. Our Author, Anfwers this, in Anfwer to 2. 
 Theff. 3. ii, 12 and fays, That it is to be underftood of 
 Chift's Inter ceffion for us. 
 
 CHR. That is altering all the Rife of words that 
 is known among men. The Church of Rome allows 
 an Ora pro nobis to the Saints \ which is a plain Di- 
 ftinclion 'twixt Interceffion and Beftowing. Eftablifting 
 
 the Heart nothing can do but God* And therefore 
 
 I ought not to Pray to any but God to Eftablifli my 
 Heart. If Interceffion were Ground enough, then I 
 might pray to a man to Eftabltjb my- Heart, to Give 
 me Grace &c, becaufe he can Intercede for me. 
 
 SOC. But not fo effeaually as Ckr&. 
 
 CHR. That is true. But it is Inter ceffion ft ill. And 
 therefore if iMerceffon will not excufe fucjr a Prayer of 
 mine from Blafphewy and Idolatry, if I make it to a 
 m* 9 it will not alter the Cafe, if I make it to Ckritf, 
 who is no more than a man,as the Socinians do Dif- 
 pute. 
 
 (5$.)^ But fee what Stiles St. Paul gives Him i. 
 
 Tim. 6. 14. 15. 16. -Vntttt the Appearing of our Lord 
 
 .Jeffts Chrift, which in his times he (ball (hew, who is the 
 
 bluffed and only Potentate, the Kjng tf Kjngs and Lord 
 
 of
 
 5 3 The third DIALOGUE. 
 
 of Lords, which only hath Immortality, Dwelling in the Light 
 which no Jnm can approach unto, whom no man hath feen 
 
 ncr can fee. 
 
 Hift-F- '3$ SOC. The laft words fhew, that not the Lord 
 Christ, but God is defignM in this whole Defer rp. 
 lion. 
 
 CHR. They ftiew indeed that Chrifl is here defcrib'd 
 according to His Divinity ; In which Senfe he is and 
 ever was Invifible. And even in His Body He was 
 in fome Senfe, Invifible, that is, they faw His Body, 
 but if they did not underftand Him to be the Chrifl 
 this was call'd not Seeing of Him. Seeing is there taken 
 job. 8. 4.55. for Kjtomng and llnder ft anting. In which Senfe Cbrifl 
 tells the Jews that they neither Knew Him nor His Fa- 
 ther. Tho' they faid of Him that He was their God. 
 And they that Kjien God are faid to See Him. If ye 
 had "Kjiown me, faid Chrifl umo His Difciples, Te (hottld 
 .fob u 7 9 have Kjiown my Father aifo: And from henceforth ye Kjiow 
 
 ' Him and have SEEN HIM . be that hath SEEN ME, 
 
 hath SEEN THE FATHER. 
 
 So that thefe laft Words in the Text whom no 
 
 M*n hath feen, nor can fee, are not in one Senfe, appli- 
 cable to the father , and in another Senfe applica- 
 ble to Chrifl, and therefore they do not fhew fas your 
 Author fays) that not the Lord, Chrifl, but God is De- 
 fign'd in this whole Defcription. 
 
 God is not nanVd in this whole Defcription ; and why 
 He fhou'd not be narh'd, if He had been intended to 
 have been Defcribed. I believe our Author will find it 
 hard to tell. Why ihou'd Chrifl be nam'd, and only 
 Chrifl in this Defcription if it was intended for Another ? 
 Why would the Apoftle lead us, and even force us to 
 apply all thefe Divine Attributes to Chrifl, if he defign'd 
 to perfuade us that Chrifl was not God, and that it would 
 be Grofs Idolatry in any one who thought Him fo, or 
 Worfhip^d Him as fucb ? 
 
 And
 
 The tbM D I A L G V . 5$ 
 
 And why would any of the Divine Attributes in this 
 'Defcnptton be in Exprefs Terms apply'd to Chrift, as 
 we find it Rev. 17. 14. where He is call'd Kj*g of 
 Kjngt^ and -Lord of Lords ? 
 
 SOC. Go to the next. 
 
 (36.) CHR. Tit. 2. 13. Looking for the Glorious Ap- 
 pearing of the Great God and our Saviour 'Jefus Chrift. 
 
 SOC. Nothing Hinders but that we m*y believe that not &$& 140; 
 only the Lord Chrift, but God Hiwfelf mil appear at the 
 lajl judgement. 
 
 CHR. Nothing Hinders ! Yes, I'll tell you what hin- 
 ders our Believing it, God has not Revealed it : and you 
 muft not add to His Words, -God has not told us that 
 He will appear any other way in the laft Judgment 
 than by Chrift Jefus. God is a Spirit, and muft take a 
 Body to appear to the Eyes. And that God will aflume 
 2L'Bodj diftinft from the Lord Jefus , and appear in an- 
 other Body at the laft Judgment, is a bold Frefumption, 
 and Adding to God's Word to fuppofe, and never was 
 fuppofed ; but by thofe who will invent Extravagant 
 and Groundlefs Suppofis to elude the plain Ttxts of 
 Scripture. It is the Opinion and Interpretation of the 
 Mahomatans, whofe greateft Error is being Socinians. 
 
 Clem. Alexandra (admonit. ad Gent. p. 5. and 6.) applies 
 this Text only to Chrift, who was the Word of God, 
 and fo true God, and likewife true Man, and that it was 
 His Apparition at the lap judgment that was here fpoke of. 
 
 " But now this very word Himfelf hath NI/V 3 i 
 rt appeared unto Men, who only is both y^* 
 a God and Man, and the Caufe of all Good 
 
 <e to us for as faid that Divine Apoftle 
 
 4< of our Lord, The Crane of God that bring- 
 *' eth Sahation unto Men hath appeared, &c. ^^Vo/fl^lvw* ^."rit. 
 f 4 looking for that Bleffed hope, ad the appear - 
 f the Glory of the great God, and our 
 I Saviour 
 
 "
 
 The ;f AM. DIALOGUE. 
 
 05, ^~sT^:w%? n ^i " Saviwr yef&iClw/l. This is a New Song, 
 * feiS 1 . the Epiphany or .Appearance of the HW 
 
 KCUVOV, )j ET/fl<tr* : ITW *if . r T, ' - J L P T- 
 
 ^A^a*w cv jp?r ^ iy ? y ^ who was an the Beginning, and before Ex- 
 *? iviof x] -o'cvlof AO^ ifting, which hath ihined unto Us ; He 
 
 " appear'd of late, who before was our Sa- 
 
 " viour. -^i*cwJ .i 
 
 (37.) CHR. Heb. 12. Bj .*ba*. *tfi> He made the Worlds. 
 
 . This is, for whom He made the Worlds. 
 CHR. But the Greek is.<h', by whom, Qrtgenjm Job. 
 p. 56. of 2 Tom.j {hews the words to be 8\ By whom 
 
 and thence proves PTJO Qsos Tas'A^ots TrgWnxg ^icc T t|y. 
 
 That God made the Worlds By His Son. But to End 
 this poor Shifty CoL:l i. 16. it is.HUd, that -all things were 
 Created BT Him, -^nd- tOR Phm^ And' IN Him\ as we 
 have before obferv'd^ \^ 
 
 SOC. Well thence muft fee if we can get any help 
 
 from the other tyords of this T*xt. He fays fome do 
 
 render the Word$ thus. .iByn^rhodn He made the Age*. 
 
 tHR. .The -Greek yfoxA n&)^ fignifies^^ and it is as 
 
 often, us'd for ^r*/(y, that isr, AR'tyes, or Generations, 
 
 or the, 4ge *? come^ as. ^tfe ffayi the W-o^l^to come. Hence 
 
 thc_ word 'A<iew/.;fignifies; Etetn<d. } i TirtJ. ^. 16. But 
 
 fuppof^ itv uv tlwt Senfe; *how: will it help your Caufe ? 
 
 WillnyoU ailownhit God made all Ages by Cbriftl* 
 
 SOC. No. That we miift not do. Therefore our 
 
 Author under ftands 'by '^5 'only the Ooffel Ages ov 
 Ti>et<,n\ 'ji^ii ttv/ id vr^vvv^^ ^V srli 3fi \VaN 
 
 CffK* But by what Authority does he do that ? Does 
 he allege any?MtliiQg*outlo6i<ihe Text GtdCd#ftxfj l & any 
 other Authority r 1 for; it^no od*r r n:>M oini 
 
 SOC. No. 1 Not if, Wordlu.; 3 -jfii bn. , 
 
 CH.R* .Theni ii^lie JjajUPirwef ; tb ^in^klRr ^/ ? he 
 
 may<, if he ^cafes,^y,ith^t >it ^Hfcaht inly - the -Stges of 
 
 fqnj.dl ( " Otber . j it efamxttqn ^tha n tha t by the "Gtypel of 
 
 \GfaiJlji fome- tye^\n t^cbme,< ?v t)ethaps the M/ktiftiy,' or 
 
 what dfe hev-pleafes*^^^) ^*^^o \) ^C*^ 
 
 Wt6 Heb.-
 
 Heb. '7. .?. Mqlchifedeck is compar'd to thjrSWo 
 'God in thefe particulars, a : s beifig $tMf Fatbtf, f#/$L 
 ##r Mother, Without Defcent, ^^^^^^ g ^^^]^^^ 
 Days, nor E.n4 of^Life, i>ut ma$e 'like* -unto ffi } $otf^o 
 God, abideth A Priefl ZdtijiafflK* 
 
 Thefe are. not Literally underftood of Melchifedeck, 
 only *thcit "none of "thefe $iingi aVe t Recorded of him. 
 and fo he was left m ^i^ovj 1 ' Without father, : ^c, 
 But in thefe' particulars, "he was lite the Son oTGtyt 
 ^no 7 really waPwraPP^ftS^eMi \^& tfiere Taid to lie, 
 without Beginning of Days or End of Life, &rg,: 
 V $<3C3 Bu< our -4//^or fays, that of all thefe thing 
 " 
 
 - , 
 
 he is" only like the. ,&# of G^ in that, particular, of 
 being SSHl? 
 
 CHR. By What Rule does he exclude 'all fte^eir, 
 
 - 
 
 which are in the fame Sentence, ?- 
 SOC. I cannot tell indeed. ' 
 
 QHR. LicentiA Socin'tAnA is .beyond Licexpji poetic A. 
 
 But how: came $tilctiife'deck to ''.be like the \.S0n Q$ God, 
 'if 'there Was no $B8 of G^, -when Melchifeded was 
 
 made ? The Pattern after which any thing is made 
 
 muft be before the C0/>/ that is made after it. 
 
 SOC;farfi 15. it is {kid that 'another PrM '(Chrift) 
 jMth after the Similitude of''tielct,iftiick.\ 
 /'^HA. And how will you ' reconcile thefe two uppn 
 
 the 'Sociriian Principle? For Melchifedeck ' cannot 'be both 
 
 after the Similitude of Chritt, and Chritt after the Simi- 
 ,litude pif Melchifedeck. But ,jfl ^ , the Chrijlian Scheme it 
 
 is raqft eafy, ' ,'viz. the Eternal Sort of God was before 
 
 Melchifedeck, but Incarnate in time after Melchifedeck. 
 
 And yet it was . the fame Jefus, yejterdy, to day, and 
 
 (?9 V ) fir wer. As it is expreft Heb. ij. 8. 
 
 XM ^MM*> that was fpokc f the G ffei 
 
 ot LbriH not Changing. ^.p-247- 
 
 CHR. pt, : the Tw fpeaks it exprefly of jT^ H/^. 
 aricl :! ive : know that the Phrafe was us'd to exprefs 
 
 I 2 all
 
 The third DIALOGUE. 
 
 all time Pa/I, Prefent y and to Come ; and is the fame 
 with the Alpha, and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending , 
 which was, and which is, and which is to come. Rev. i, $. 
 and other places of Scripture. 
 
 (40.) He has two Texts out of St. Peter, i. Pettr 
 i. n. Searching what, and what manner of time the Spirit 
 of Chrift, which was in them did fignife, when it Tejtiffd 
 before hand the Sufferings of Cbrijt. 
 
 J//&P. 148. SOC. Our Author fays, That by the Spirit of Chrijl 
 there, is meant only, the fame Spirit of Prophejj which 
 Was in Chrifl. 
 
 CHR. This was fpoke of the Prophets long before 
 Chrijl was Born. viz,, that the Spirit of Christ was in 
 them, and did Teftifie beforehand the Sufferings of Chrifl, 
 now if Chrijl had no Being, before He was Born of 
 the Virgin, as you fay, how had He a Spirit fo long 
 before ? And how cou'd His Spirit Teftify before it had 
 a Being ? 
 
 SOC. Therefore our Author fays, not that it was the 
 Spirit of Chrijl which was in them, but only the Pre- 
 fhetick Spirit that fpoke of Chrijl. 
 
 CHR. But the Text fays exprefly that it was the 
 Spirit of Chrijl which was in them. This asx not Inter- 
 preting, but Running quite from the Text. 
 
 SOC. He fays that Poets are call r d the Poet? of fuch 
 Men as they wrote of, as Vir%iL is called the Poet of 
 JEneas, and Homer of Vtyjjfy. becaufe they wrote of 
 jEneas and Vfyffes* 
 
 CHR. But is there not fome Difference r twixt calling 
 -a Man fuch a Man's Poet, becaufe he wrote of him 
 (thV that is an Expreflion I never heard us'd) and 
 'twixt faying that fuch a Man's Spirit was in him, and 
 did Signify to him what he fhould fay ? Efpeciafly if 
 the Man whofe Spirit taught the other, hacT.no-<ty; 
 a.t that time, nor was a Man then: A Man to teach 
 another before he is Born. St. Barnabas^ in Hi$<Caiholi<k
 
 The third D I A L G V E. 
 
 i 
 
 Epift.. c. j. p. 21, 22. fays that the Prophets having the 
 Gift (of Prophefy) from Chrift, did Prophefy of Him. at 
 
 And St. Ignatius in his Epift. to thfr Magmfians, fays 
 that f 6ej( nwe Infpifd by His Grace.. 'Of 6oTa Tr&xpvTett 
 g/xTrj'gofteyot uVo TTIS ^a^tTos ct'JT^ Thusthefe Holy Fathers, . 
 who liv'd with the Apoftles ; and learned their Do&rin from 
 their Mouths y as well as from their Writings. And one .of 
 them was Ranked with t\\Q,4poftles, Ad xiv. 14.. 
 
 (41.) Ther is another Text in this fame ///?. of St. 
 Peter, which like wife imports the , Exi fence- of our Bt. 
 Saviour before His Incarnation, i. Pet. 3. 19. 20. Qui&kned 
 by the Spirit, by which a/fa He went, and Preached to the* 
 Spirits in Prifo, rvhith Comet imes mre. Difohedient in the 
 Days of Noah.. 
 
 SOC. Our Author Interprets this' of Chrifts Defcent 
 into He.ll. And quotes Eellarmine. 
 
 CHR. This is not the only Inftance wherein your 
 Author Craves aid of the Romans; But he does not 
 quote the Book or Chap, of Bellarmine, that 1 'you may 
 not find him out, without more pains than .it is worth ; . 
 but this we are. fure of, that the Papifls, generally In- 
 terpret this of Purgatory., And I would defire our 
 Author to tell us what Bufiriefs our Saviour had -. -to 
 Preach in Hell? Is there Repentance and Rewiffion there? 
 He has given Reafon to think this is his- Opinion, 
 which we fhall have more occafion to>-Difcourfb here- 
 after. But the Orthodox do plainly mean, according 
 to the Letter of the Text, That it was the Spirit of 
 Chrift which Preached .in Noah, and the Prophets of 
 thofe Days r to thofe Spirits which were then Bouvd 
 in the Chains of their &//j^.And which are now in 
 the Prifon of Hell. And that Spirit by which He 
 quickned Himfelf, was the fame by which alfo Ho, 
 aud. Preached, in the pays of Noah. ..
 
 VIALOGVE; 
 
 beVe akftfls? Very peremptory Twtf. .;i. 
 
 \: 7. TMre ' -\re thrt'e 'flat be AT Record in Heaven. 
 
 The father, the Word, and the Holj Ghoft, and thefe 
 
 i j~i< v * 'i f *i' ' -.>* 
 
 three are vne* * f * . t 
 
 SQC. 'This /'Vr/i? was riot Originally in the #;/<?, but 
 has beerx addfei} to it. Tis not found in , the rnoft An- 
 tierit Qjfviefe Itfriflfe Cireek, -nor in the Sjr/W', :Arabick,'or 
 jEtbfofitifrj or 'ArtiKtoU* -Bibles, nor in the moft Ancient 
 /?//> Bibtes; %s .not ;ieknowledged by the Fathers; 
 'tis wholly itje&ed- by. abundance of the moft Learned 
 Crititlis. and by all acknowledged to be Doubtfull and 
 
 wwS&p 
 
 rrt-fat. ad. C/^8. Thils 'is manifeftly falfe, for St. Hierome * does 
 
 1111 -by no means a'cknowledge it to be Doubtfull or 
 
 ^ 
 ' 
 
 certain. But on the Contrary tells us plainly that he 
 found our how *his' '-Text had been adulterated by un- 
 "i?m^ceii S ^ithful Tranflators, and by others Omitted on purpofe to 
 !?j-T 1 \ C 58lEl^cfe j;3 i^ M fVj^KM B ^nd I will fhew you hereafter how 
 i-.id the Ap;'.thofe whom ton Quote as the Primitive ' Socimtns, were 
 jin&or&tifly^foete&ed in their Adulterating the H. Serif- 
 ]^^?6. l '~tufes? '&A&'-tifck*'&rt'teff0fihsLve continuM their Pratt ice 
 :-ifc tnis; therdfcftt forae Copies may want it. But this is 
 '^Iv^X^kfe? 'Ar&urhent, or Prefamptioa rather, fof it 
 
 ij t-^ * J 
 
 ^can^mdunt to no more. And in no judicature can ftand 
 *%$hfr^*^rMftive Proof of St. Cyprian, St. Hierpm, 
 aM : ateei^'F4/^i?r/,'and which is admitted in all the Churches 
 opOr*//?- ^ JAnd ! it r K;a great Providence of God, That 
 
 I Kt*%^t*n iJ' _C .U t ^ ... .*.*-~~ **f ,\i'.~ '~r*m*t. !>. ^ /Till 
 
 Copies, found this 
 
 \ , ^ /. _ ____ . i ^-, _] *- 
 
 wanted it, which he has fo carefully told in his Tra- 
 
 soc.
 
 
 The third &IALOGVE 
 
 .a,,^- 1~ M-V^i P ibirfw .i\M,-. -K ->n 
 ; SOC. , Our fi|J$ftr gives ; a fecond A qfweiy . 
 
 one, that is, are not one Go^jbut' t ftre^Qne 
 \ for they are fpoken of here as Witnejfes. 
 CHR. And their Witnefs verf. 9. is caiPd th&Wiiwfs of- 
 
 fCfH'iioomi-". 
 r- j 
 
 \30a>. 
 
 SOC. So every Witnefs of Mep^.whiclj ,<?M appoints^ 
 is callM the Witnefs\oi God, <vf%. because; G^j appoints 
 
 it. ',/ofi < m vsvh Y*\* 
 
 CHKrBut here the Iwmediat Witnefs of God is put 
 in Oppofition to the Witnefs of Men, or other. Witnefs 
 of God, which is by the Mediation of Second Caa/es; The- 
 of the three -,tp $wwv\ i$ , coipar'd - with the 
 is of |}ie thrw -fq Ewify. ^nAftd ithe Conclusion is 
 that ,if'.;W4 ceceiy^ : fbe Witntfa of the ^h?^;in 
 whicl} is- Call'd the Wit&efs of Men, i.'e. wrought 
 by the .'Jtfi*iftrj\pf ^Men^ wp, ought much rather to re- 
 ceij/e^tie-W 7 //^//} of the thvte, .in Hetven^ which is call'd? 
 the IV it Hefs of God, and %- greater \Vitnejs than the 
 ^rpf Men,. It is call'd .the Witnefs of God, which 
 teftine^, in L oppofition to what was teftify'd by -other 
 rneaois. Apd this is a J)emonftration that the Text of the 
 three Wrtneffes in Heaven muft not bevleft out, becaufe 
 
 *. Jf I P - w 
 
 ther is ,a C^w/^^^^fnacteKiliiw^^^^^if^^}:' b thefe 
 three and ,the three Wifn.effes in Earthy So that if. you 
 leave out t-his Verfe you muft leave, out the ^,/7^-8, aiid 
 9th Verfes altogether, which no $ociiari has yet fa much 
 as, attempted. And the Witnefs of thefe thfee in He**- 
 ve .being 'call ? d, the Witnefs of God, in oppofition to the 
 fame Witnefs by Mw is a, full proof what w,as 
 when it was feid^that fbgfe ..three, are one, i. ja. 
 God\ for other wife their Witnefs could not be the -Wit-* 
 nefs ,of Qed 9 that is ImmedtAtly,: as it. is there put in op 
 pQfition ? i;o .a nwftAt Witnefs by M<T/V. or otherwife* 
 
 SOC. I have heard this Text is not Quoted by any^of 
 the Ante-nicene Fathers, and you nam'd Cyprian juft now ? 
 I let me hear what he fays of it, 
 
 GHR*
 
 66 The third DIALOGUE. 
 
 CHR. In his 7$. Epijl.^ which is Dire&ed ^ubaiauo, p. 
 20$. fpeaking againft the B&tifm of Hereticks, and 
 fhowing that they cannot lie the Temple of God. 
 
 asks of which Go*/? If of the CREATOR, 
 noa Credidh ; fi ft e cannot who does not believe in Him; if 
 fft' Tem P iI S ,%" of Chrifl, neither can he be this Temfh who 
 
 - cbriftum ; fi Denys G0d? C^r//? ; if of- the Holy-Ghoft, when 
 
 cum Tr fi be 
 
 t"*! -IL- i. T t 
 
 pleas'd with him who is an Enemy -to the 
 
 eipoteft, qui aut Patm, father 9 Or the S0fi ? 
 
 aut fili] inimicas eft ? 
 
 Here you fee he reckons the Fatier, Son, and Holy 
 Gboft, each of diem to be God. For when he is fuppo- 
 ling the feveral ways by which any become the Tem- 
 ple of God, he computes that it can be but one of thefe 
 three ways, that is, by becomming the Temple either of 
 the Father fwhom he calls Creator) or of the Son, or 
 of the Holy Gbojl, which (hews each of them to be 
 God: and he calls Chrif exprefly 'Godt and fays that 
 tbefe three Are one, and (de llnit. Ecclefite, p. 109..) Chrift 
 fays, I and the father are one. and again it is written 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, and theft Three are 
 one* This I quoted before, and I refer you to the Anno- 
 utions upon this place in Cyprian to (hew you many Ma- 
 nufcripts, where this Text is had, and vindicated from 
 the malice of Socinus. And if you will look into Dr. 
 Hamond, and Pole's Synopf. Critic, upon this Text you 
 will be further Satisfy'd. For I wou'd not take up time 
 now, to go thro 7 all this at large. 
 
 (45.) i. John. 5. 20. We know that the Son of God 
 it come and \hnth given us an under (landing, that we may 
 know him that is True ; and we are in Him that is 
 True, rvtn in His Son Jefus Chrtfl : This is the True 
 .God.
 
 The third V1ALOGV E. 
 
 SOC. My Author fays, That, this was a very negligent 
 Tr inflation, for whether you Interpret, Him that is True, 
 to be God, or to be Chrijt, no fenfe can be made of 
 . the words. 
 
 CHR. Does he tell where the Nonftnfe'is? 
 
 SOC. No- he fays no more of it. 
 
 CHR' It feems to me to be fo far from Non- 
 fenfe, that I cannot fee the leaft Difficulty in it. To 
 know him that is True. I cannot imagin what fhould 
 trouble him at that faying, but that he is refolv'd to 
 Quarrel 
 
 SOC. The Latter part of the Text ought to be thus 
 render'd. We tire in him that is Tr%e (i. e. in God) by 
 His Son Jefus Chrift. In God, By Chrift. 
 
 CHR. But the Text is quite other wife, it is !>/, In His 
 Son. He does not pretend that the Original is other wife, 
 yet he finds fault with the Trtnjlttiotr, and calls the 
 Scripture Nonfenfe. .Q 
 
 The Apoftle immediately fubjoins to this Text, L*>- 
 tle Children keep your f elves from Idols. Which feems 
 to bear this Senfe ; That if Chrift were not the 
 True God, He muft be an Idol, becaufe Divine Wor- 
 (hip was paid to Him; And this is an Explanation of 
 his calling Chrift the True God: viz. That whoever 
 elfe pretends to it, is an Uol, and therefore we muft 
 Worfhip none elfe. 
 
 Ther is another part of this Text which our jiuther 
 takes no notice of, which does plainly Evidence the 
 Divinity of Chrifl, and that is, That the Son of God 
 hath given us an Vnderftanding that we may know Him 
 that is True. 
 
 To give man Vnderftweiing is an Incommunicable At- 
 tribute of God. And that is, paft all fubterfuge, attri- 
 buted here to the Son. 
 
 : ?mc-> Liu ( wi i-d i. \ 
 
 K As
 
 The third VIA LO G V E. 
 
 As knowing the hearts of Men is, Rev. 2. 23. I' am 
 He (faith the the Sort or God. Vtrf. 18.) which fearchetb 
 the Reins and Heart. 
 
 SOC. Chritt knoweth our Thoughts, only when God 
 Reveals them to Him, and thus the Prophets may know 
 155. Thoughts, 
 
 CHR-. And thus I know your Thoughts, and you 
 mine, i. e when -we tell 1 them to one another. Bur 
 does that make me a Searcher or Kjiower of your Heart? 
 We have fpoke of this before upon Rom. 2. 16. and 
 i Cor. 4. 5. and fhown that a Kjiomr of Heart s^ is he* 
 who knows them .of Hitnfetf, without being told by an- 
 other. And that thjs is an Incommunicable Attribute of 
 , God. 
 
 To what I then faid, I will only add this, That in the 
 Scripture God ufes this as a peculiar Attribute, as you 
 may read, i Sam. 16. 7. t Cor. 28. 9. PfaL 7. 9. and 
 139. i. Jer. ii. 20. and 20. 12 and many other Scrip- 
 tures, ,But that which is moft remarkable, and belongs 
 particularly tb this Text we are upon is, Jer. 17. io 
 For what God fpeaks Gracioufly of Himfelf in that verft, 
 Chrift fpeaks of Himfelf i& this. 
 I'fttfti The prophet ia the 9th Verfe flrews, that nonev 
 can know the \ Heart: Wto e*& know it? And then in 
 the; , next -w.ords, -God' fpeaks, fetting forth His Almighty 
 Power in that he knew it. / the Lord Search the Heart, 
 L Try the Reins even ta give every Man according to his 
 Wfys. .j <: iohi /H 
 
 And Rev. z. 23* Cbrijl Attributes- the fame to Him* 
 filf. \ Theje things faith the. So* of God. ( Verf/ <8.) fi 
 Am He which' Searcheth the Reins and. Hearts : And jfi 
 will give t& every one of you according to your Works. 
 IwpfMs .(adverf. Her. I/ 4; c. 56. p. 569.) reckons 
 this among the Attributes of God : And this fame Text 
 Rev. 2. 23. is repeated in his Texf, and quoted in the
 
 The tlircf DIALOGUE. 
 
 Ffl trouble you but with one- Text more. R<v. 5. 5. 
 Chrift is call'd, The Root of David. 
 
 (44.) SOC. That is, a Root flinging from David . 
 ds A Root of the Earth is a Root which fpringeth from 
 the Earth j not on the contrary a Root from which the Earth 
 fyringtth. 
 
 CHR. This is very fine, the Sophifm is Subfile , 
 and worthy a Socinian / Pray, let me know what 
 you do mean by the Root of any thing ? Is it that out 
 of which the thing Grows, or that which Grows out yf 
 the thing ? 
 
 SOC. That is as Commonly known as any thing in 
 the World, For the Branches grow out of the Root s p 
 and not the Root out of the Branches. 
 
 CHR. And when you, by a Figure, apply this to 
 Families, and fay fuch a one is a Branch of fuch a Fa^ 
 wily: 6'uch a -one is the Root of the Family: Are not 
 thefe Terms as Commonly known as the Root and ? 
 Branches of Trees ? And is not the Root fpringing from 
 a Branch the fame abfurdity as a Father fpringing from 
 his Son? 
 
 SOC: All this is felf evident go on. 
 
 CHR. Therefore if Chrijl be the Root of Dwti\ He 
 muft be befort David ; and this deftroys the Sociniaxt 
 principle, which allows Chrift no Being before He was 
 Born of the Virgin. 
 
 And therefore your Author muft get over this, tho* 
 he is forc't to make the Root the Brand, and the Brattcfr 
 the Root. 
 
 This wou'd have put any lefs rvit or Reflation- 
 into Defpair. For the attempt looks as eafy to prove 
 Day to be Night. It is ftrange he wou'd fcruple the 
 Triniiy, Incarnation, or any other Difficulty who cou'd 
 hope to Mafter this. And he has done it to a mira* 
 de/ For he has found a faying, a Root of the Enrth> 
 'by which is not meant that the Etrth fprings out 
 
 1-r- f 
 
 K 2 Ot
 
 7 o TKe third DI ALOJSVE. 
 
 of that Root > f And therefore the Root may be a 
 Branch. A Father may fpring from his Son, and what 
 you pleafe. 
 
 Let us Entertain our felves a little with this Great 
 Invention) and Examine if particularly. 
 
 Pray what do you mean when you fay a Roof of 
 the Earth? 
 
 SOC. I mean a Roof that Grows in the Earth , 
 and fo is calPd a Root of the Earth. 
 
 CHR. So you may fay a Root of fuch a Man's, who 
 owns the Garae*, of fuch a Gardner who planted it, of 
 fuch a one who Beftotfd it upon you, and a hundred o- 
 ther ways. But is there no Difference twixt a Root 
 that belongs to a <*#, and the Rost of that **4# A/w- 
 felf ? Twixt that which Growt in the <ir/ and the Roof 
 of the <*r^ it felfr* Therefore tho* you may call SL Tulip 
 A Roof of the Earth, yet you wou'd not call it, 
 THE. Root of the Earth, now Chnjl is call'd 27/E #00; 
 of David, not ^4 jR0of of David. But pray what did 
 our Author mean when he calPd Chrift The Root of 
 
 SOC. He meant that C/^// was z.Bratkk of 
 Family. 
 
 CH/*. And whea did you ever hear a Branch of a 
 call'd the Root of its .Rod/. 
 
 It is inextricable Nonfenfe. There is not a man in 
 the World cou'd fpeak at this rate, or wou'd be un- 
 derftood if he did. That defigning to call John a Def. 
 undent or Branch of Robert, fhould call "John . the Root 
 of Robert. 
 
 And it is impoflible for me to think that our Au~ 
 tfar did believe bimfelf, when he made this Dittincti- 
 <to ' : Add it is i[ full Demonftration to me, That thefe 
 men 4 feek not Truth, but are refolv'd to oppofe all Argu- 
 me*ts agaiuil their own Opinion, tho' they were as clear as 
 die , Light. 
 
 But
 
 The. tlnvcf DIALOGV E. 71 
 
 But (Rev. 22, t6) ^efus, fays, 1 am the Root And the 
 Offspring of David. Here is both Root a ad Branch i 
 This grows too hard for a &*3fafi#fa and cannot be 
 reconcil'd any other way than as Chrift is the Root of 
 David, according to his Divine Nature which Created 
 David, and fb David fprang from Christ, as a Branch or 
 Offspring from its Root : And then according to Chrift's 
 Hitman Nature, He was the &> and Offspring of Da- 
 vid. As He is propheiied of. If A* 2 6. Ther (ball -come 
 forth A Rod out of the Stem of Jejfe t and a Branch 
 (baft grow out of his Roots. But our Author will have 
 it, that the Branch was the Root, growing out of the 
 Root ; and the Rod was the Stew, which came out of 
 the Stem. 
 
 See now, upon the whole, what Caufe your dttthor 
 had to Conclude fo Triumphantly as he do's at the End 
 of his fourth Letter, p. 166. That our Lord CHRIST, 
 nor the HOLY SPIRIT, neither are, nor ever are called 
 GOD's or GOD in Holy Scripture ; as alfo, that neither 
 CREATION ( whether New or Old) nor any of the AT- 
 TRIBUTES of GOD are Aferibed to our BLESSED 4^ 
 SAVIOUR. 
 
 Whereas the Main of his Arguments have been ( as 
 you have feen ) to Ward off thofe Texts in Holy Scrip*- 
 turt, which AfTcribe the Name and Attributes of God to 
 Both the other Perfons in the Bleffsd Trinity ; and to put 
 other Senfes and Conjlructions upon them. 
 
 But then to Conclude from all this, That they are 
 not fo much as Called fo, after all the Pains he has 
 taken to fhew in what Senfe they are Called fo, is fuch an 
 Aff (trance as Contradicts it felf ! Has he not own'd that &*$ caii'd 
 Chrijt is calTd the Word of God? And is it not faidin^ 
 Exprefs words, Joh. i. i. That the WordwzsGodt And 
 ver. 14. WAS made Flefb t Is it not faid, 2. 'Cor. $. 17. . s 
 The Lord is that Spirit? And is not the Spirit then r/ 
 Call'd God? In what Senfe is not now the Question. 
 
 That
 
 7 2 The third J) IALOGVE. 
 
 That we have feen already. But he fays, they arc 
 not Co much as Call'tl fo. 
 
 SOC. I have now Heard you to the Anfwers my Au- 
 thor gives to thofe Texts alleag'd by the Trinitarians in 
 Proof of the Trinity and In-Carnation. It is fit you 
 fhou'd likewife Anfmr to thofe Texts he brings in Dif- 
 Proof of them. For this Compleats the Work. 
 
 GHR. In what I have done Already, I hope I have 
 
 not only Clear'd thofe Texts againft which he Difputes, 
 
 as to their own Genuine meaning ; but have likewile 
 
 fhew'd, That our Interpretation of thofe Texts is fuppor- 
 
 ted by the Current Seafe of the moil Orthodox Fathers 
 
 before the prfl Council of Nice ; and Confequently Vin- 
 
 cheated the Ante-Nicene faith againft the Allegations of 
 
 . your Author. 
 
 That the Tn- But before I come to thofe Texts which he Alleges 
 
 SvTw 5 of e on k* s ^ e ket me A( ^ to t ^ ie T e flimoies of the Fa- 
 tYttcburrb be- thers I have Quoted one Evidence of a Bitter Enemy to 
 fore the firfl ChriftiAnity y the Vile but Ingenious LVCIAN, who Liv'd 
 a b ut 1 7 >' ears a f ter Chrtft, A Man of his Sagacity, 
 . and who took upon him to Ridicule the Cbriftian Faith, 
 cou'd not but know what it was, as Then generally 
 Qivn'd. and Profr/tV by Chrijlians. Efpecially if (as St. 
 *jfrom in C4^4/. tells us) that he was once a Chriftian, 
 and turn'd Apofat. Among other his Reproaches upon 
 Christianity he has thefe words in his Philopatris, 
 
 God Reigning on High, 
 
 Great, Eternal, Heavenly, the fljgpTev, &.viuv*, 9 tjfa 
 Son of the Father , the Spirit ^vt\i^ c FoTeps &K 
 proceeding from the father , J^JQV, v &%. r&wv, *, 
 one out of Jhree, and Three *&<*&&. otfot y) TI TUiyetsl Iv 
 out of one - / know not r& 9 - r&iz Zv. 
 what thou fay* ft ; One that is 
 Three, and Three that -are one. 
 
 Some
 
 The third DIALOGUE. 
 
 Some Learned Men think that the Philopttris was 
 not wrote by Lucim, but by fome other about the 
 Year 261. Which anfwers my End as well, to Prove 
 the Do&rine of the Trinity to have been Receiv'd 
 in the Church before the firft Council of Nice. And 
 next I will go with you to the Texts alledg'd on 
 your fide.
 
 Lv; v/^v;&.v> x i si'* ten* aMiifcJ 'nsivi 
 
 :'i rtuorb -srlj} srtol \d 3wd ? i, , . - iprt 
 
 x l o: jb'.v is fanH'ym i'^Vlnc rbiiTs .10;: : 
 ' : i -:>- H 'fl'-y.r! rvtd 01. v^rV 3 ij f io 3tthBoQ 
 
 .^VA to ii jnuoO fhFiP' *adr s'*ci VM^'J- sdi fli 
 
 c> .sbrl iuc;v 
 
 
 3 H T 

 
 >< f J TO fcnH at:J 2s 
 
 tow.'i 
 
 ..: 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 c , -iiTi w 
 
 T LJ V iv ' 
 
 THE ;/i i? 
 
 il '-"x) io -^frt --^iii v.^V, #rfj ?H^3 
 
 DIALOGUE.; 
 
 Vi.; -.; {!. i^'j^s .(!:# v}tV v 
 
 A General ^/^er av to the 7^x/5 .U|g'd- ; 
 k by , the :Stiinia?is, againft, the Divinity. ,o. 
 
 ^^wAioifiW' UA 
 
 1)00 wrj- ;-..( o! ^nidian g'j'.f^fr; ttrd r oir't 
 
 (i.,) 50C. f a -^Hefe begin In the Hiftory, p. 4. where, xvn 
 ' feveral Tffjf^ are Quoted to Prove ur j| e b ' t 
 that the Father is Greater than jwmm a 
 
 - 
 
 . That is anfwerM in the bfa*f* Creed. 
 is Equal to the Father , as touching His God-Head^ 
 and Inferior to the Frf^er as touching His Manhood: 
 To which I Will add, from our Difcourfe, That He is 
 Equal to the Father in Nature^ but Inferior in the CWer 
 of NatuFe, .or in Relation. And this anfwers all the 
 Reafons and Scriptures he produces to . 7. p. ii. wherein 
 he fpeaks of Chrifts Human Infirmities and Death, for 
 thefe things befell Chrifl in His Human Nature, wherein 
 He was- a Creature, Paffible, Improvable, Rervardable, &c. 
 
 SOC. But . 7. he proves Cbrift to be a diftinft P^r- p. 
 )2> from Go^. For which ffuppofe you thank him j 
 but I fee not how it ferves his Caufe. *3P 
 
 B (2.) But
 
 The fourth VIALOGVE. 
 
 (2.) But at the End of this . p. 12. he intermixes an 
 12, Argument from Reafon and argues thus. *Tis (Jay the 
 Socinians) AS impofflble that the Son or Image of the one 
 true God, JbotSd Himfelf be that one true God, as that the 
 Son (hotfd be the Father, and . tfa, faage that .wry thing 
 rvhofe Image it is; which they take to be fmply Impofflble, 
 And Contradictory to cowmen Senfe, which Religion came not 
 to Deftroy, but to Improi*. 
 
 CHR. What I have f*id to you appears the clearer 
 for this Objection: And fhews his miftakes. Firft, he 
 calls the Son the Image of God. If by the word God 
 here, The Father be meant (as ic is often"* then what he 
 fays is true, but then theris no confequence in it, and the. 
 Fallacy will appear by putting the word father inftead 
 of the word God. For Example : T/J as impofflble that 
 the Son or /Image of the Father fbotSd himfelf be that Fa* 
 tber, as that the Sti* fl>ou*d -be the Father, an A the Image 
 that very thing rvhofe Image it is. All which is very 
 true, but makes nothing to his purpofe. 
 
 But now, if by the word Ged, you mean the one 
 God- head, or the Divine Nature, then his AfTertion is a 
 miftake, viz. Tbat the Son is the Image of God. In this 
 Senfe, He is not the Image of God, for He Himfelf is 
 God. But he is the Image of the Father, from whfcm 
 He took His Nature, and therefore tho' He has the 
 fame Nature with the Father, yet he // not the Far her. 
 And we fee the fame in the Parallel of Mankind. I put 
 . 5.3. "a Cafe. Adtm begat a Son in his own Likenefs, after 
 his iMAge^ and catPd his name Setk. And the word Ad&m 
 fignirks Man, and fometimes is taken to mean Man, that 
 is -Mankind in General or the Human Nature, and fome- 
 times it means- %iy \ch& firjt- Father, who had thit for 
 riis.^artiailar J^artte^ In wiJch Senfe only it isth3t&/6 
 caa He called the :j S0v or Ima^t of Man, that is, of his 
 father Acfofni But other wife he cannot be faid to be 
 the Son or Image of Mun^ tor be himfelf is Man, and he 
 
 cannot 
 
 V '.'
 
 The fourth DJAL&QVE. 
 
 cannot be his own SON, or IMAGE. But the terms 
 of Pxthtr and Son refpect only the Perfons, not the Na- 
 ture of Man; and thus it is in God. And our Author's 
 miftake arifes from not Confidering aright of this Vnitj 
 of Nature, and Diverfity of Perfons, which appear vifibly 
 both in the Divine Nature, and in the Humta, which 
 was made after its 1m Age and Likenefs. 
 
 SOC At the End of . 7: p. ij. he promifes many P . 
 Con fide rations and Paffages of Scripture, which no lefs 
 than Demonttrat it to be falfe, that ChriU is God. And 
 the Demon ftration is this, . 8. Becaufe fo many Text* 
 exprefly declare, that, only the Father is God. 
 
 (3.) The firfthe brings is, John 17. i, 2, ?. Father, this 
 is Life Eternal, that they know Thee, The only True God, 
 And Jefas Chrifl whom Thou haft jent. Here, the Father 
 is calPd, The only True God. 
 
 CHR. But ther is a vaft Difference 'twixt faying, that 
 He is the only true God t and that He only is the true 
 God. There is but one only true God^ or one Divine Na- 
 ture ; and each of the Perfons do partake of this Nature^ 
 that is, is this one only true God. But then you muft 
 not fay of any of the Perfons^ that He only is this God y 
 becaule the other Perfons do partake of the fame Nature, 
 and fo are the fame God. So that the word only 
 makes nothing in this Argument. And faying the only 
 true God means no other than if he had (aid, the True 
 God t or God fingle, without either the word 'True 9 or 
 onlji For we all agree, that ther is but one, True, God. 
 Thefe are the attributes which belong to the Divine Na- 
 ture, and Confequently to every Perfon who partakes of 
 it.- And therefore they do not Diilinguifh one Perfott 
 from another, nor are they meant in any fuch Senfe in 
 this Text. 
 
 (4.) SOC. The next Text is i: Cor. 8, 6. 'But to * 
 there is bnt one God, The Father ', oj whom are all things. 
 
 B a cm;
 
 4 The fourth D I A (J V E. 
 
 CHR; We fay there is but One God: and that the 
 ther is that God. \And this Text fays no more. The Fa- 
 ttier-^ of 'wfoh &e all things means God in this Nature , 
 yyhich jndu3es H $$ whole Trinity*,. ,2$$, fometimes it is 
 taken perfon$If tb mean only the Father, as has been al- 
 ready difcptfrVd. . And this will anfwer the other Texts 
 he there brings. 
 
 , v nr\n , JL 1 TT f ' O 
 
 , CiO IBfifoSfr %d?T\ ** rP-^Mr and M- He objects, 
 wjjy 1 .ChrJf\ fhoiPd,have the auiftance of the Holy Ghott$ 
 '"He. riimfe^f oei'rig '-'God the Sor. 
 
 CHR. Chriji. did fubmit himfelf to all the Infirmities 
 of ottr^ Nature ttiat cou'd be diflinguifht from Sin. For 
 He came to be an Example to us. Which he had not 
 ^een, if his UitiiyJty had Exerted it felf to the "Ctmofl. 
 Therefore he } was : . perfected^ as we are, by the Vnction 
 of thd HolfGtfoft* Received ""'itaptifm from John the Bap- 
 ///?, and fulfill all Right eoufaefs, or Conflitutions and 
 WP^^J of Riehteottfaefs to which o//;^r men were Obliged. 
 
 ' t\1 - *^ - ; *^ ^ 
 
 ti&.,' IftcfeAp in Wifdom- r and afcribM to the Father and 
 to the Wo^' G^T? the rror^j which He did. Nay more, 
 He fubmitted to receive Comfort and Ajjiaaqce from 
 Angels, *n& to be fapptyd in his Temporal Neceffities from 
 the minifry of wf and women. In (horr, to be deJpis*cL 
 fuffer^ dye.j and be buried.^ Leading us thro 7 every ftepof 
 out way 'to 'Hcaveo. Thus thereby approving Himfelf 
 to be the Captain .of our Salvation, as the Scripture, 
 3 fpeaks, For it became Him for whom are all thing?, and 
 ' by whom are all things, in bringing many Sons into Glory 
 to make the Captain of their fahation perfeft, thro* faffe* 
 
 ring Wherefore in aft things it behoved 'Him to be wide. 
 
 li]ie unto His Brethren? 
 
 (6.) SOC. ih'p. i<, He fays, if Chrijl had been more 
 than a man, the .Prophefies of the oldTeftament, wou'd not 
 have defccib'd Him . barely, as the feed of the woman, the 
 feed bt'AtyMm , and 'a Prophet like unto Mofcs. 
 
 CHR. 
 
 2 J0< 
 
 '
 
 The fourth VIA LOGV E. 
 CHR. This muft be a willfull -Miftake incur Author*. 
 Becaufe he pretends to Anfwer many Texts in the Ofd 
 Tefiarnent which do plainly fpeak Chrift to be more than 
 Matt: For Example, when Chrift was Prophefy'd of in 
 theie words. Vnto us a Child is born, unto us A Soft is 
 
 given He {ball be calPd Wonderfufi, Cottncellor, The 
 
 mighty God, The EvwUfiing Father, The Prince of Peace. 
 A Virgin {hdl Conceive, and Bare a Son, and fhdl call His 
 Name 'immanuel. That i* God 1 with us. 
 
 The Lord fad unto my Lord. By which Chrift prov'd, 
 That He muft be more than the Son of a Man. If Mm. 2245*- 
 David.call Him Lor 4 -\hoiv is>He\ his Son? And this Ar- 
 gument was fo plain as to filence the very obftinat Jews. 
 SO'C. But he anfwers thefe Texts afterward, and think- 
 ing them of no force, he does not quote them now. 
 
 CHR. That is begging the Queftion. However with- 
 out naming thefe, he fhou'd not have- faid, That ther 
 was nothing" in the Old Tefttiwent, which fpoke of Chrift 
 other wife then as a M4#; Ot that it defcrib'd Hlm-farefy 
 as a Man. The contrary, to which himfelf muft know. 
 
 Thefe are all his Arguments againft the Divinity of - 
 
 Chrift. Let us fee his Proofs as to the Holy Gho/t. They ments of the 
 begin p. 16- And there he immediatly falls into his old sodnims a- 
 eoatraxJiaiqns of proving the .Hbly-Ghoft to be- God, and,f-^ *$%; 
 not to be Go4', to be a Perfon, and, not to be a, Perfon.ffoijGbon.' 
 And which is extraordinary, he proves both by the very ? l6 ' 
 fame Argument. 
 
 (i.) He fays, that the Holy-Ghotf, -or Holy Spirit^ is p. 18. 
 to be taken in the fane Senje that we Commonly fay the Th j t fl tlje 
 HolyWifdom,:Q^Bol^mil of God, or as- 'he-faid before. *\f&* TO 
 p. 1 6. the Power. pf-God.> And that they are fpoke n of y as<wr or wtf- 
 one' and tbe fame thing. ' domofGod. 
 
 And here (without^ his intention; no doubt) he has 
 falne upon the very dtvifion of ti& Faculties of the-&w/, 
 aad of the Psrfons, of Qod y Power y . Wiftom,- Witt. 
 
 ! i 1+
 
 -g "The fourth DIALOGV E. 
 
 But now to his proofs. Where he f peaks confident- 
 ly to himfelf, he goes nearer to prove The Trinity, than 
 what he himfelf woird be at p. 8j. which we have 
 Quoted before, he proves that God?s Word, or Wijdom 
 and Power, it not fowethixg Different from God; but, 
 bring Hit Wifiom attd Poxer, is God, 
 
 And yet here p. 1 7. he fays, that a Manifeft diftinftio* 
 is made, as between GOD And CHRIST, fo alfo between 
 GOD sad the HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 By the Holy-Spirit, as he tells us, is meant Gods 
 Pomr, and WtfdoTx, and WilL 
 
 Thefe be makes to be God. And to be manifeftfy 
 diftincl from God. And then thefe Three, Power, Wif- 
 dom, Will 9 Are the very three Perfons in God which 
 we bav defcrib'd. 
 
 This in hkn was being led near the Trinity, even 
 while he was difputing againft it. 
 
 And it appears yet more in this, that when he endea- 
 vours to get off from this, he falls into manifeft contra- 
 dictions. For example, he "fays, p. 16. That the Hotj-Gboft, 
 or Spirit, is only the Power of God, at ttAJl not hmtfelf 
 God. And p. 17. tb# 9 tu impoffibk the Spirit ftrou'd be 
 God himfelf. 
 
 And yet as before is laid, p. tJj. he gives the fame 
 reafon, why the Word is not any thing Different from 
 God, becaufe it is the Power of God, which is God. Here 
 the Spirit or Power of God, is God. p. 17. it it impof- 
 fble the SPIRIT jbotSd be God. 
 
 The matter was this, p. 83. The Word muft be the 
 feme with the Power, and the Power, the fame with 
 God, to get over that unanfwerable Text. The word w*s 
 God. 
 
 But p. 17. The Holy-Gbofr muft be Different from 
 God, to Hinder Him from being God. 
 
 And thele contradictions are no way reconcilable but 
 in the True notion of One God, and Different Perfons. 
 
 soc*
 
 The fourth D I A LO G V . 
 
 i\\ t ' ' . 'i * , Dt" *-* -***' v ^*^ ' * ~ * * * ' 
 
 SOC. The Spirit is obtain'd for us of God, by our 
 Prayers; therefore it is not God. Luk. n. 13. H&p Sfiri ' 
 mucb more fbt& your Heavenly fatlxr give the Holy 6^>/*in'd of God 
 rit to them that ask him\ If we fay, tbefe Texts are t o^ s ourPray " 
 be underftood, not of the Perfon of the Holy Ghojl, but #//hp. 19.- 
 of His Gifts and Graces ; The Socinians readily confefs 
 it, but they fay aifo, that if the Holy Spirit were at all 
 a Perfon, much more a God, His Gifts and Graces wou'd 
 be beftow'd by Himfelf. 
 
 CHR. If they be His Gifts, they muft be Beftow'd 
 by Himfelf, elfe they were not ////Gifts; for my Gifts 
 is what I my fclf Beftow, not what another man Be- 
 flows : So that your very Argument confutes its ielf. 
 
 zdlj. They are Exprefly call'd His Girts, and that they 
 are Beflovfd by Him. i. Cor. 12. 8. For to one is Given, 
 by the Spirit^ the Word of Wifdom; to **other the Word 
 of Kjiorvledgtj by the fame Spirit; to another Faith , ey .the 
 j&mc Spirit ; to another the Gifts of Heating, by the fame 
 Spirit ; to another the working of Miracle s\ to another 
 Prophejie ; to another Difceming of Spirits ; to another 
 Divers kinds of Tongues ; to another the Interpretation of 
 Tongues : Bat all the fe .iwrketb that ont and the felf firxe 
 Spirit^ Dividing to Every Man fevera&y as He Will. 
 
 Now as to the feeming Difficulty How thefe Graces 
 fhou'd be the Gifts both of the Father and the Spi- 
 rit, they being two Perfoxs, it is eafiiy anfwer'd by 
 their being One God\ whereby, as before told, all the 
 Three Ferfons are Joint as in their Natures ^ fo in all 
 their Operates ; tho' yet ibme Operations are more Pe- 
 c*ltarlj,but not Exclufoety, attributed to one than to an- 
 other. 
 
 And this is Remarkable in this very Chapter, verf. 4, - 
 5, 6. where a Trintty of Perfons, and forts of Gifts are 
 plainly Diftinguifh'd. Now tfore are Diverfities <?f<iIFTS, 
 bat the fame SPIRIT; And there are Differences of Ad- 
 mini ft rat ions, to the fame Lord ; and there art Dwerft- - 
 
 ttes
 
 8 The fourth VIALOGV E. 
 
 tit! of Operations but it is the fame God, 
 All in All. Here Gifts are attributed more Peculiarly to 
 the Spirit^ who Infpires Us ; Adminif rations to the 'Lord, 
 who Governs Us; and Operations to God, who Gives 
 Us Power to Work, who works all in att in Us. 
 
 But now, to turn your Argument upon you, I defire 
 to know, how you will Reconcile the Fathers and' : -t|he; 
 Holy Chops beftowing Gifts, without making them fe- 
 veral Perfons? That is, how the Holy Ghitt cou'd be- 
 ftow Gifts if He were not a Perfont For our Difcourfe 
 now is only of Him. And if He were only the Gift, 
 and not the Giver, He cou'd not be faid to -BeJtowV A 
 Gift does not Beftw it (elf. 
 
 LafHy, Reconcile or Condemn your own Setts, wlio own 
 
 the Holy Ghojl to be ^Ptrfon\ and Bidle in his Con- 
 
 fiffion of Faith y Artie. 6. of the Holy-Gboft, calls Him Ex- 
 
 prefly, The Third Perfon in the Holy Trinity. 
 
 That no (3.) SOC. In the fame place he fays, That in the Scrip - 
 
 are ture no Rrtjprs are made to the Spirit. 
 l CHR. Wherever God is Invok'd, the Spirit is Invoked. 
 
 Nay more, He is often included in the term of Father, 
 when ever we fay our Father, by which the whole Tri- 
 nity is meant, who are jointly the Father of all Creatures, 
 but tliis has been obferv'd beforci^l 
 
 SOC, .4 p, 19. he fays, The Scripture Jpeaks of God 
 as but one Perfon^,-.^ 
 
 CHR. That is, where the Scripture fpeaks of one God, 
 lie wou'd have, it imply 'd, That ther is but one Perfon 
 in God\ .which the Scripture no where fays/ 
 God, (4.) SOC. t p. 20. he lays ftrefs upon God being fpoke of 
 is fpoke in iri the CiHguUr Number, which he thinks cou'd not be, if 
 syhr He had three Perfons. 
 
 jNUfHDClt /-irTr> r T*i- ' ' 4 t 
 
 P. jo CHR. This is no more than faying God is one, 
 which the Trinitarians aflert as much as he. But God 
 is likewife fpoke of in the plurd Number. As, let Vs 
 make Man, Gen. i. 3.6, &c. 
 
 SOC.
 
 The fourth D IALOGV E. 
 
 SOC. He fays, that is according to the fliie of a 
 Prince, who fays, We do this or that, when it means 
 only himfelf. 
 
 CHR. I deny that it means only himfelf. A Prince 
 takes that Stile to fhew he does nothing by himfelf, that 
 is, without Council or Advice, and therefore his Ads are 
 the Ats of a great many ; Or as he is a Body Politick, 
 which implies a great many, all of whom He Repre- 
 fents. And I fuppofe, none will fay, that any of thefe 
 Reafons has place in God, And therefore it is very Ri- 
 diculous, as well as Falfe-Reafoning, to pafs over the 
 moft weighty and ferious ftile of Scripture, upon the 
 Complements or Infirmities of Princes. 
 
 * k i"tf 
 
 SOC. But he gives an Inftance of St Paul, who was - 
 no Prince, nor Temporal Great Man , who wrote 2 
 Cor. 10. 2. Some think of us as if we wall? d according to 
 the Flefb, which, he fays, St. Paul means of himfelf only. 
 
 CHR. I muft ask his Pardon. It feems plain to me 
 by thofe words, that St. Paul fpoke of a fcandai rais'd 
 againft more than himfelf, againft the Chriftians, or the 
 Apoflles. Which is undeniable from the two nextVerfes.. 
 For, fays he, M we walk after the Flefb, we do not war 
 after the Flefh: for the Weapons of our Warfare are not 
 Carnal. Does the Apoftle think we mean his own 
 
 was - p . 
 
 
 fare only, or not rather the Chriflian Warfare ? 
 
 SOC. But tho' Princes fometimes ftile themfelves In 
 the Plural Number, Yet he fays, No Inftance can be p. a o. 
 given in any Language, where more Perfons are meant by 
 the Singular Number, as, /, THOV, ME, HIM, &c. He 
 fays, juch fpeaking is contrary to Cufom, Grammar, and 
 Senfe, ahich are the Laws of Speech : Therefore the Holy 
 Scripture always fyeaking thus of God, either he is only one 
 Ptrfo ; or the Scripture are one continued TJngrammatical 
 Solicffm and Impropriety, and that in the chief Article of 
 Faith ; which no reafonable or good man can or ever will 
 allow. 
 
 C CHR.
 
 ! Tlx fourth ]>I A JL GV E. 
 
 CHR. Which no ReAfonAble 9 Good or Mode 8 man wou'd 
 affert in terms fo Irreverent of the Holy Scriptures, and 
 God their Author ; and in fuch fulfome afTurance of his 
 own Wit. 
 
 And after all, this is not true. For in common Dif- 
 courfe the 'pabular number is as oft put for the plural, 
 as the plural for the pngultr. 
 
 It js as common to tfey. Such a Kjng March'd, or 
 Fought, or Retreated, by which his whole Army is meant ; 
 as to ftile himfelf Vs and We.:^ n { 
 
 When we fay, M*n fell, Chrift came to redeem Man: 
 Do; you mean only forae one particular MM? Or by 
 this Singular Numoer are not miny men meant ? 
 
 But now give me leave to Retort this argument upon 
 
 him. What Grammar will he find for God's calling Hint" 
 
 Cen.3. it.felf, Vs, and faying one of Vs, Tlje man is become as 
 
 one of Vs.. Abraham fpeaking to three Perfons, to fay, 
 
 My Lord) if I have found favour in Thy fight Pafs 
 
 not from Thy Servant, But wafh^^rfeet, and reft your 
 
 felves -i- and comfort your hearts -And They faid, 
 
 4. 9. 10. 16. where is thy Wife ? And He faid, / will certainly re- 
 
 17. return unto thee And the Men rofe up, andtheLojvf 
 
 faid. Shall I hide from Abraham what / do ? 
 
 Hece are three men fpoke of, and fpoke to both -in 
 the pnguUr and flttrAt numbers promifcuoufly, This is 
 odd fort of Grammar. 
 
 By what Rule of Grammar will he conftrue this Sen- 
 tence? 
 
 John. 8. 5!. Before Altrdtun WAS, I *m. He wou'd do as the Jews 
 59* did, if he durft, caft ftonesat Cbnft for fuch Nonfenfe. 
 
 or Blafphemy. And now muft the Scripture be one con- 
 tintfeL ungrammAticAl Sdkifin^ and Impropriety, And that 
 i* the thief Article of Faith, becaufe thefe and the like 
 Expreflions are out of the Road of common fpeaking, 
 and win not fit our poor Circumftances ? 
 
 Or
 
 He fourth DIALOGUE. 1 1 
 
 ^ .* ^- .1^' *r 1 **xr\*i^ " *fil ft f T 
 
 Or if it muft be fo, unlefsthefe fayings are .feconcil'd, 
 and if they cannot be reconciled to common Senfei, b^t 
 by the Dodrin of the Trinity - } Then here is an Invirf- 
 cible Argument for the Trinity, made out of this Objection; 
 and that by conforming not only to Grammar^ but to the 
 Cuftom of all Nations which under ft and to fpeak Intelligibly 
 and Senpbly, With which excellent Rule our Autho? 
 ends this Paragraph, beginning of p 22, And all that 
 he has to fay out of Scripture, againft the 1 'Deify of the 
 Holy Gkof. 
 
 SOC. He comes next to the Creed. And fays, the Son objeaion 
 and Holy Ghoft are not call'd God in the Apoftles Creed, from the 
 
 'SOC. God is nam'd at firft as a Nature or Species t o cv ^*'* 2 
 Individuals. 1 'believe in God. Then the feveral Per fink 
 follow in their order. The Father, His Son. The Holy 
 Ghof. That the word God was not apply'd to each of 
 them is no Objection ; our way of fpeaking at this Day 
 being the fame. As when we fay:' God the F^/^r, 
 Son, and Holy Ghoft , wherein the Natur t 6f God is inten- 
 ded to-defcend to the Second and T&/^Perfon; And 'if 
 this be fufficient with us, to exprefs our meaning, it was 
 much more fo, before the ArUns haddifturb'd the doh;ip 
 of the Trinity ; which occafion'd a farther Explication of 
 It in the Nicen and AthtnapAtt Creeds. 
 
 Let me once more retort upon this /Author, add ask *** 
 him what tolerable Senfe, he will make of this Creed 
 upon his Scheme ? That is, fuppdfmg the Holy Ghojl to 
 be nothrrtg different from God, more than a man's /wiw 
 or \viflom differs from himfelf. Then he muft give 
 us fome good Reafon, how ' believing in the Holy Ghoft 
 Came to be a diftinft Article by it felf, from that of 
 believing in. the Father! And put at that diftance from 
 Him too, as to have more than two thirds of the whole 
 Creed interpofe. As to fay, I believe in a Man ; And I 
 believe likewife in his Spirit. Which is the fame, as to 
 believe likewife in Himfelf. 
 
 C 2 I
 
 i a The fourth P I A LOGV E. 
 
 I doubt this wou'd not pafs According to the Cuftom 
 of all Nations rthicb iwderftand to Jpeak Intelligibly And 
 Senfbly* 
 
 To divide A man betwixt Himfelf and his Spirit, 
 and to make two Articles of thefe, that may do Come- 
 th ing ; becaufe a m*n has a Body and a S/>/r#fand they 
 may be .divided. But to divide God, who is all Spirit, 
 betwixt Himfelf and His Spirit ! And to put in the So 
 betwixt them! And to make three Articles of thefe, can- 
 not be put into Senfible or Intelligible 1 Language, by the 
 Cuftom of any Nations yet extant. 
 
 Nor cou'd they think this An Accountable wd reafona- 
 
 p. .24- 2 $* yi e Faith, as pur Author inferrs the Socinians to be, from 
 
 this their Excellent and plain expofition of the Creed. 
 
 And now as a Conclufion . 6. p. 24. he in. a. meek 
 
 and modeft way tells the TrinitArUns that their Faith is 
 
 abfurd, and contrary both to Reafon and to it Self, and 
 
 therefore not only F*lfe, but Impoffible-, that it is, of all 
 
 others the moft 'Brat*!; and that not to Difcern it, is 
 
 not to be a man, &c. But of this fort of- Treatment 
 
 we have Plentiful! Store in your Author. 
 
 xvm. ^^' ^ ou ^ ve Q. uote d Several of the Fathers before 
 
 TI e pretence Nice on your Side: We have vs. Ancient on our Side: 
 
 of the sodni- A n( j ' lt \ s t our Evidence fbou'd be heard as well a* 
 
 to AH\ t- y OUrs< Q ur Hiftory f a y Sj p. 26. Thy whom we now call 
 SOC1N1ANS, w^re by the Fathers and firft Ages of Cbri- 
 fiAnity cAlfd NAZjlRENS. They, mere alfo in thofe frsi. 
 times call'd Ebiomtes, MineAns, Samofatenians, and feveral 
 other Names he there reckons up. 
 
 CHK. They were fo call'd, and Condemn'd as Here* 
 p. 26. titks. Behold the Fathers of your Ckurch ! 
 
 But He joins the Ariws with the Orthodox againftall 
 thefe, and fays, that, The writings of thefe Ancients Are 
 All loft, being defied ty the ARIANS and CATHO- 
 LICKS. 
 
 ! ~ -.> i 11J>I- t I - 
 
 So
 
 The fourth D I A L G V E. 13 
 
 So that the Arians were Enemies to thefe Ancients, 
 which will break their SucceiBon mightily, or make it 
 run under ground for many Centuries, till it broke 
 out again in Socinus Fifteen Hundred Years after 
 Chrift. 
 
 SOC. But what do you fay to the feveral names by 
 which they were calPd in the Primitive times ? 
 
 CHR. They were the names of feveral Hereticks, as 
 you will find in lren*us, Eufcbius, Theodore?, EpiphanittSj 
 and others : And they (land to this day Condemn'd as 
 fuch by the whole Chrijlitn Church. I cannot Imagine 
 what advantage your Author proppfes by this. 
 
 Neither does he tell us the opinion of thcfe Ancient 
 Hereticks, as to the Queftion in hand, how they agree 
 with the SociniAnSj and yet deferv'd to' be perfecuted, and 
 have their Books burnt by the Arians. 
 
 But that is no matter. The names are old names, 
 and found like Antiquity ; and every body will not ex- 
 amine whether they were Fathers or Here ticks : but 
 think this Opinion of the SocintAns has been very An* 
 dent. 
 
 But if Antiquity alone wouM do his Bufinefs, I can 
 help him to an Elder precedent than any of thefe: Si- 
 mon Magus was the firflr broacher of this Doftrin, and 
 Father of all the Hereticks he has nam'd. 
 
 St. ^ehn fays, that many of thefe falfe Prophets were t j hn 4. i, 
 gone out into the World in his time : And tells you, 2 3- 
 what their Opinion was, viz. That Jefus Chrift WAS not 
 come in the Flejb. And he calls this the Spirit ef Anti- 
 Cbri/t, which was to come into the World; and it is the fame 
 with the SociniAn Opinion. That Chrift had no Being 
 before he was born of the Virgin : and therefore cou'd 
 not come in the Flefh. This Opinion was againft the 
 An AH as well as the: OrtMoo^ and not Reviv'd till 
 Socinus. 
 
 SOC.
 
 1 4 The fourth VI A LOG U E. 
 
 r 157- SOC. Our Author tells you, that that is not the mea- 
 ning of , that text of St . { Jobn, but that this faying, 
 Came in jbe Ffrjb (or,, in Flefh, for fo. 'tis in the Gm) 
 is opposM to thefe falfe Prophets and, Teachers, that af- 
 firrifd thrift had not a Real Body of Flefh and Blood, 
 but a Spiritual, and confequently was not a true Man, 
 nor the Off-fprlng of D&viL On the contrary, St r 'John 
 here teaches that Cbrift is come in Flefh, or in the Flefb, 
 that is, was cloathed.wkh a Real Body of Real Flefh. 
 
 CHR. I grant that St. Johns. Words are full againft 
 thefe Heredcks. PUC win* that excufe you? This Text 
 is fo worded, ^a* to Deted you both. For St. John does 
 not only fay, that Chrift vfas Flefh, but that He came 
 in that Body -.of Flefh. 
 
 SOC. I told you, That means no more than that he 
 was clo'dtHeA with a Body of Flefh. 
 
 CHR. But the Text fays that He Conn. 
 
 SOC. Yes. He came fo cloathed. 
 
 CHR. Muft He not exift then before He came, and 
 was fo clothed? Was it nothing that came, QV was ctoathed? 
 Your Socinians . confek that Cbrift was Flefh ; but you 
 deny that He came to take Flefh upon Him, for you fay, 
 that He had no Being before He was made Flefh. But 
 Gal. 4. 4. the Scripture fays, that God fent forth His Son, made of 
 Tkii. i. 7. a Woman, and that Chrift took tifon Him the form of 
 a Servant, and was made in the likenefs of Men. Cou'd 
 He take this form and likenefs upon Him before he had 
 a Being? St. John, fays not only that Cbrift was Flefb, 
 but that He was in the beginning with God, was fint by 
 God to take upon .Htm our Flefh, that He came from God 
 to do it, and that to deny that He came, is to be an 
 Ahtffprijti and how He couM come and be fint, and 
 take upon Him the form or likenefs of Men, and yet be 
 nothing, as you fay, before He was Born, this lies upoa 
 you to Explain. 
 
 SOC,
 
 Tie fourth D1ALOGV E. 15 
 
 ^ SOC. I have told you all my Author fays. But 
 give me leave to purfue it a little farther; Is it not a 
 Common faying, That fuch a man is Come of fuch a 
 Family? Yet this does not fuppofe that he had any Be- 
 ing, or that he really came before he was born. 
 
 CHR. I think it does. You cou'd not fay a Child 
 is Born, if it were not a Child before it was Born. 
 But you cou'd not fay, that Child took upon him the 
 form of a man : A man does not take upon him his own 
 Being. 
 
 SOC. But 'Lwi is faid to be in the Loyns of his Fa- Heb 
 ther, before he Was born, and that the Jews came out i, 5.' 7 " 
 of the Loins of dbrakam. 
 
 CHR. And is not that literally true? 
 
 SOC. It is true only as to the matter of their Bodies : 
 For that really Came from their Fathers. The Soul is 
 fuppos'd by a Figure which takes the Part for the 
 Whole. 
 
 CHR. But Chrift, you confefs, came not by Corpo- 
 ral Generation, therefore He muffc come fome other 
 way. And muffc as really exift before He was Born, 
 as the matter of my Body did exift before I was 
 
 TJ^ 
 
 jDOrn. 
 
 SOC. The fubftance of his Body He took from His 
 Mother, by which He was the Seed of David. 
 
 CHR. But fomething, He took likewife from His 
 Father, by which yoti confefs He is truely call'd the 
 Son 'of --God. So that what He took from His Father 
 muftexift before tie was Born, as much as what He 
 took from His Mother did exift before. 
 
 SOC. You fay, That what He took from His Father, , 
 was from Eternity. 
 
 CHR. Yes. But that fubftance which He took from 
 Hiis Father, being Joiri'd to the fubftance which He 
 took from His Mother, is what we call His Ivcarna- 
 sion. As Generation is not the Begetting of a Soul, but 
 
 the .
 
 16 The fourth D I A L G V E. 
 
 the Joyning it to a Body. And without this you can- 
 not verify the Form which you y6ur felves allow, 
 That He was Begotten of God. For there is Differ- 
 ence 'twixt Creation and Generation. We are all Created 
 by. God, and are His Sons in that Senfe. But Chrift 
 only is His Begotten Son, by which He partakes of His 
 Subftance, and His whole and perfect Nature as all Be- 
 gotten Sons do among us. 
 
 50C. At this rate Chirft was twice Generated, once 
 from Eternity^ and once at His Incarnation. 
 
 CHR. I grant it. For His Eternal fubftance which 
 He took from His Father being, by the Operation of 
 the Holy-Ghoft, Join'd in one Perfon with the Human 
 fubftance which He took from His Mother, is calPd 
 His Incarnation. And is like wife cafl'd Generation, as 
 he is call'd my Father who is the Inftrument of Join- 
 ing my Soul and Body together, not that he begets my 
 Soul, or it comes from him other wife than as Joining 
 it into one Perfon with my Body. Thus Chrift is not 
 the Son of His own Spirit, other wife than as it found 
 His Flefb in the Womb of the Virgin, and join'd it to 
 His Perfon. 
 
 SOC. But why was His Human Generation perform'd 
 by the Holy Ghott, whereas His Eternal Generation was 
 from the father only, as you fay ? 
 
 CHR. Do not think I will take upon me to Explain 
 all the Hidden Myfteries of God, and this does no ways 
 concern the fubjed we are upon ; only that it proves 
 demoriftrably, That the Holy Ghofl is God, becaufe if he 
 were not, Chrift cou'd not be call'd the .Son of God from 
 His being a Perfon. For Begetting is the moft Per fond 
 acYion can be Imagin'd : Naked Qualities cannot Beget a 
 man. Whatever Begets muft have Subfance ; Therefore 
 the Holy Ghoft mull be a Sabftance, and muft be God, 
 becaufe what He Begot is for that reafon, call'd the Son 
 HA. 25- of God, and Chrifl muft likewife be God, becaufe he 
 
 partakes
 
 The fourth DIALOGUE. 17 
 
 partakes of the Subftance of God. For, as before is faid, 
 this is the Difference twixt Creation and Generation ; in 
 Creation we partake of fuch fubftance as God pleafcs 
 to give us ; But Generation is partaking of his own Sub- 
 ftance who Generate us. 
 
 SOC. Then Chrift partakes of two Subftances of 
 God. Of the Fathers Subftance in His Eternal Ge- 
 neration, and of the Ilofy -GbojPs in His Human Ge- 
 neration 
 
 CHR. The Subftance of God is not Divided among 
 the Divine Perfons. There is but One Substance or Na- 
 ture which exifts in three Diftincl: Subfiftences or Perfons^ 
 as has been faid before. And this Subftance being, by the 
 Operation of the third Perfon, United to a Human Sub- 
 ftance, is truely Generation. 
 
 SOC. Then Chrift partakes of this Subftance twice ; 
 once from the Father in HisEteranl Generation, and 
 once from the Holy Ghott in His Human Genera - 
 
 tlo " : rr -, t , . f . 
 
 CHR. A Man cannot partake anew of what he has. 
 
 already. And the very word Human Generation, might 
 fet you right in this matter. For it was thrift's 
 Human Subftance which did partake, or was made 
 one Perfon with His Divine Subftance, by the Ope- 
 ration of the Holy Ghoft, as on Corporal Subftance 
 partakes, ,or is made one Perfon with one Soul or Spiri- 
 tual Subftance, 'by Corporal Generation. 
 
 SOC. Can one Subftance partajce of another Sub- 
 ftance. 
 
 CHR. Nothing 'elfe but Subftance can partake of 
 Subftance, their being United fo as to make up one 
 Terfofi( ? is calVd their partaking of one another. Chrift 
 did not take His Divine Subftance from the Holy Ghoft* 
 But, by the Operation of the Holy Ghoft, His Divine 
 Subftance was United into one Perfon with His Human 
 
 D Subftance
 
 x8 Thefowti DIALOGUE. 
 
 Subftance, and His Human Subftance did partake of His 
 Divine Subftance, by the operation of the Holy Gbo/t. 
 
 Thus, in refpeft of His Divine Subftance, the Hoi} 
 Gboft did Unite it to His Human Subftance. 
 
 In refpeft of His Human Subftance, the Holy Ghoft 
 did Exalt it into a Ptrfonal Vnion with His Divine Sub- 
 ftance.' 
 
 In both refpefts, He was 'Begotten, by the Holy Ghoft. 
 But in different manners, according to His different NA- 
 twes. As is to be feeri even in Human Generation. Thus 
 fer towards framing in our felves Come notion of the 
 Myfterious Generation of Chrift in the Womb of the 
 Virgin. 
 
 But 'there is art eaficr anfwer to the Objeftion, for 
 you have heard in what has been faid before, that in 
 the Union of Two Natures in One Perfon, what ever 
 belongs to either of the Natures is verify M of the whole 
 Perfon ; as we fay, that Man is Mortal becaufe his Body 
 is fuch, and as truely we fay that he is Immortal be* 
 eaufe his Swl is fuch. And by this Rule we may tru- 
 ly fay, That Chrift was Begotten by the Holy Ghoft t 
 and was His Son, for fo He was as to His Human 
 Nature, and likewife that He was not Son to the Holy 
 Ghoft'. But only to the Father, from whom only he took 
 His Divine .Subftance, for that is true as to His Divine 
 Nature, and both thefe are truly verify'd of His Perfon,. 
 which is both. 
 
 SOC. Let us now, if you pleafe, return to our 
 Hiflory: For my Author lays ftrefs upon that. And ir 
 is not the leaft plaufible part of his Book. 
 
 CHR. And there is nothing in his Book fhews the 
 weaknefs of his Caufe more than this, for he there 
 conftiTes, that/ which, if he had deny *d, wou'd have 
 been my greateft task to have prov'd againft him. And 
 that i, That t!ie\V-/>;/,i# Opinion had been all along 
 condefcmM in the Church^ a$ HerAtta', for all thefe were
 
 The fourth D I A L G V E. i 9 
 
 ' 
 
 20 . 
 
 fer'd among themfelves, even in that Herefie^ as the So- 
 ciniAns do at this day. Befides other Grofs and abo- 
 minable Errors which the $ocinia,u-Vnitari*ns do abhor 
 as much as we do. Of thofe who call'd themfelves 
 Chriftians > Simon Magus was the firft who appear'd in 
 Difgrace of the Trinity. 
 
 He was Converted and Baptiz'd by Philip. But had 
 fo contemptable an Opinion of the Holy Ghoft, as to H3er - 2l - Iren 
 think He might be purchafed with Mony. After this^T/Lao?*" 
 falling from one Error into another, he at laft fet up his 
 Whore Helena for the Holy Ghoft, and Inftituted beaftly 
 Carnalities for the Worfhip of God, wherin the Im- 
 pure Gnopicks. follow'd him: Who boafted themfelves 
 the greateft Men of Reafon, whence they affum'd to 
 themfelves, the name of Gnafticks, from their Exceeding 
 other Chriftians in Kjtowltge. 
 
 The Denyal of the Trinity is ever attended with o- 
 ther Errors, which appeared in Simon M*gus, who deny- 
 ing the Trinity did likewife hold that the World was 
 made by Angds, held Magic and Idolatry Lawful, flighted 
 the Law of Mofes as not being from God, aqd allow'd 
 of promifcuous- Manages and all fenfuality. 
 
 The firft our Author names in his Lift of the Sod- 
 rii&n Fathers, are the Nazarens. A fort of Chriftians who 
 afte&ed that name Rather than to be nam'd after Chrifl Id HaEK 
 or Jefas. Epiphwius tells us they were perfect Jews, 2p.Theod. : 
 they retain'd Circumcifion, and the ludaical Rices, and H*rer. fab. 
 dirler'd from the Jews only that they believ'd in Chrift. 
 
 They us'd a Gofpel which is call'd the Gofal of 
 Peter. 
 
 The Ebionitts.) whom our Author reckons next, fo 
 called from Ebiotf, held chat Chrift -VMS born of Jofeph 
 as well as of Mary (which our Modern Sociaians do abhorr) 
 
 D 2 they
 
 2 The fourth DIALOGV E. 
 
 #f J.c.i. they liv'd according to the Motfical Law, and receivM 
 only the Gofpel according to the Hebrew s y but they call'd 
 the Apoftle an s/poftat. Symwachus^ whom owr Author men- 
 tions, was one of thefe that Tranflated the Old Tefta- 
 ment out of Hebrew into Greek. Ther are pthers like- 
 wife who are call'd Ebiomtes^ who in all other things 
 agree with the former; but they fay that Chrift was 
 born of a Virgin, they nfe only the Gofpel according 
 to Matthew, and obferve both the Jewi/b and the Chri- 
 ftian Sabbath. Irenssus (adverf. Haeref. 1. j. c. 4. p. 257.) 
 reckons Cerinthus, and before him the NicoUit&ns, who 
 had been put in with the reft, but that they are nam'd 
 Rev. 2. 15. 
 
 ib. c. 8. He tells you that Paulas of Samofata was Condemn'd 
 ib. c. ii. by . an Epifcepal Council Affombled in his own City of 
 Antiock: And Theodorft fays farther, that he publickly 
 Renounc'd this Error. 
 
 And that by the Providence of God, thefe Herefies 
 were fo extinguifhed, that their very Names were not 
 known to many. 
 
 But now it is thought a fit Seafon to Revive them- 
 again. 
 
 And iince it muft be. Behold the Original of this 
 Socinitns, and the fathers of their no Church! Such Lewd 
 and Scandalous Hereticks, as I am fure any Modeft 
 Socinian will ftart and be amazed when he fball reflecl: 
 from what fort of Men he has deriv'd his Faith, and^ 
 ad v.entur'd to differ from the whole Catholick Church of 
 Christ, not only in this, but in all former Ages. 
 ,2l*'< &OC- Eitftbius (Hifto. 1. 5, c. 28.) and Theodore! (Haer. 
 Fab. 1, 2. c. de Artem.) fay, that thefe Nazarexs con- 
 ftantly affirmed, that they derived their Doftrin from the 
 Apoftles of our Lord, and that it was the general Do- 
 ftrin of '... t^e Chutch, till the Popes Victor and .Zjptyri 9 
 fet thenofelves to. root it up. 
 
 rsV'tffc o?> ' \\.A r^M^HodrHr 1 ^;) ~^\\ iOt-rilTsw? 
 
 CHR.
 
 The fourth D I A L G V E. ar 
 
 CHR. They fay that the Na^arens affirmM this, and 
 do not all Hereticks the fame? Did ever any Man Con- 
 demn bimfelf?" Do not even Quaker '/, Muggletonians^ and 
 all pretend to the Scripture? Did not the Devil himfelf 
 quote Scripture againft our Saviour > 
 
 But why does not your Author tell how Eufebius, 
 in the fame Chapter, proves this their Allegation to be 
 wholly falfe, and without any Ground? Firft from the 
 Scripture it (elf, and next from thofe who wrote before 
 Viftor or Zephyrin^ as Jufti& t Miltiades, Tatianus, and 
 Clemens, Irentus, Melito and many more in all whofe 
 Books the Divinity of Cbrifl is Eftablifh'd, that He is 
 both true God and Man. And he ftands in Admiration 
 at the Impudence of thefe Nazarens, who cou'd pretend 
 that this was the general Doctfin of the Church before x 
 Vittor and Z^phyrin. 
 
 He tells us Hkewife of another Praclife of theirs, 
 which is of great ufe to have difcover'd, that is, That 
 they did boldly adulterat the Holy Scriptures, and re- 
 jected the Rule of the Primitive Faith. And he proves 
 this by a very ftrong Argument, viz,. That their Copies 
 did not agree among themfelves, fome of which he there 
 reckons, as that of a AfclepUdes^ Theodotus, Hermophilus^ . 
 and Ayclloniusi which laft does not agree with it felf, 
 for thefe Copies which were written before, differ from- 
 thofe which he wrote afterward. And Eufebius fays, That 
 they cou'd not deny this to be done by them, becaufe 
 the Copies were written with their own hands, neither 
 did they receive them from thofe who taught them the 
 Chriftian Faith, nor cou'd they ftiow the Copies out 
 of which they tranfcrib'd theirs. 
 
 Therefor they plainly own'd that they had mended neot.Har 
 the Scriptures, adding fome things, and taking away o- Fab - } 2 - c *5 
 thers, to make them more Intelligible. Nay, fome of 
 them did not only thus adulterat the Scriptures, but 
 
 abfolutely
 
 The fourth DIAIOGV E. 
 
 abfolutely rejected the Law and the Prophets. Thus # 
 febius, and Theodore?. 
 
 . SOC. Victor (fay the SocinUns} began to perfecute the 
 Apoftolick Doclrin of one God, or, what is the fame, 
 that God is one, in the Year 194. but with little Sue- 
 cefs, till that which was afterwards the Do&rin of the 
 Arians grew into general Credit and Acceptance^ 
 
 CHR. Victor Excommunicated thefe Hereticks, which 
 your Author calls a PerfecutioN. Vittor himfelf was under 
 Perfecution of the Rcmm Government: And he had then 
 no Civil Sword to Perfecute any Bother. 
 
 SOC. My Hiftorian fays, That Pistols, or other In- 
 deavours had little Succefs againft thefe Nazarexs, &c. 
 
 CHR. Witnefs what you have heard juft now out of 
 Theodoret, That they were fo bury'd in Oblivion as that 
 their very names were not known to many. For which 
 he rejoyces and blefleth God. 
 
 SOC. My Author names Jaft. Martyr, and Origen, as 
 raifing the Honour of the Son higher than the pUin and 
 fimple Doftrin of the Naztirens; but yet not fo high as 
 the Council of Nice, by Attributing to the Son Eternity, 
 
 . 
 
 CHR. Your Author Quotes nothing out of thefe Fa- 
 thers. He requires us to take his Word. But I think 
 I have given you fufficient Teftimony of the Faith of 
 both thefe Fathers^ in our Examination of the- Texts of 
 Sirifttfre. A)d ,if you wou'd have further Satisfaction, 
 I refer you at your leafure to Dr. jM's Defenfio fidei 
 Nice**. Printed at Oxford. 1685. There Seff. 2. c. 9. 
 you have Origens DoQnn as to the Divinity of the Son 
 of G^ vindicated to be Catholick, and plainly agreeable 
 to the Nice vie Faith. And Sett. 3. c. 2. J a ft in Martyrs 
 Doclrin as to the Eternity of the Son is explain'd. 
 
 SOC. Let us then proceed with our Author. He 
 tells us a Lamentable ftory 'how Low they are now 
 brought, that n-either the Nazeren Faith, nor the Artin* 
 
 or
 
 The fourth VIALOGV E. 23 
 
 or Nicene (truly fo call'd) are openly profeft in the 
 Territories of Chriftian Princes and States, except in a 
 few obfcure Towns. 
 
 CHR. BlefTed be God, That the Nazeren and Arian 
 Herefies have long been banifh'd Chriftendom, almoft 
 as much as what Tbeodoret fa id, that their very names 
 have not till of late been known to many, at leaft a- 
 mongft Us. 
 
 But it is a fad . and dilmal Profpeft of our Sins, 
 that God fuflFers thefe Tares to appear now again ; and 
 this ought to bring us to fpeedy bethinking our felves, 
 wherein we have fain fhort of our Chriftian Principles,, 
 and fearching into thofe provocations, and returning from 
 them, which other wife may root up our Religion, and 
 Deftroy Chriftianity among us. 
 
 But with what AfTurance can your Author put in 
 the Nicene Faith as banifhM Chriftendom, with the Nt- 
 zAren or Socinian, and the Arian Faith? Is not the Creed 
 of that Council of Nice read in the Chriftian Churches. 
 
 SOC. You except the Sociniws I hope. 
 
 Cf/R. They are no Church. Providence has not per- 
 mitted them to come to the very name of a Chriftian 
 Church. They look like a Blot or an Objection only 
 in Chriftianity. The Hi ft. Vnitnr. cells us, That their 
 Faith is no where openly profeft in the Territories of 
 Chriftian Princes and States, except in a few Cities of 
 Traxftlvania, and fome in the Vnited-Nether lands, which pa g t20 .. 
 allows of all Religions, that will advance Trade. He 
 fays there are many of them in the Turkiflj^ and other pag. 3~ 
 Mtfy/nettw ^nd Pagatt Dominions. It feems God has 
 baniflbt them from Chriftendom, only left fome, as of the 
 CanAAniteS) to keep us in exercife, leaft we fhou'd forget 
 our Chriftian War. 
 
 SOC. But tho' they are fo low now yet they fay in 
 Ancient times they were much fironger. The Ari*ns 
 were Very High once. 
 
 ' CHR,
 
 24 The fourth DIALOGUE. 
 
 CHR. Indeed God did fuffer them to make great In- 
 roads upon Chriftianity ; and to have favour at Court, 
 and raife Perfections againtl the Othodox. 
 mfeAriS? But he ftill moft fignally and Glorioufly preferv'd 
 flwrfSocinians The Faith, and, after fome contefts, Crown'd it with 
 dttd a .compi- yiftory .over Arlus and His Herefie to this Day. 
 'Sodnianifm And befides the Modern Vmtariwsy cannot be call'd 'Art- 
 tfwiMahorae-4/j.f, nor ha ve title even to his Antiquity. 
 
 The 4rim fay, That Chrift was Generated before 
 Hift. IMA. the World ; and in procefs of time became Incarnat in 
 P- 33- our Nature. 
 
 The Socintins deny that He had any exiftence .before 
 He was born of BlefTed Mary. 
 
 Again the ArUris fay, That the Holy G%? is the Crea- 
 ture of the 'Son, and fubfervient to Him in the work 
 of Creation. 
 
 And the Soeinians fay, The Holy Sfirit is the Power 
 and Wifdom of God which is God. 
 
 But Mr. BiMe, and thofe that follow him, take the 
 Holy Spirit to be a Per/on, chief of the Heavenly Spirits, 
 prime Miniper of God and Chrift. 
 
 But notwithftanding of thefe material Differences the 
 
 Hiftorian includs all thefe under the Name of 1)ni~ 
 
 pag. 34. t&ri*ns 4 becaufe, fays he, they agree in the principal 
 
 Article, that there is but one God. or, but one who is 
 
 God 
 
 And in this fenfe we claim the Name of VnitarUfts 
 as much as any. None afTert more than we the 'Unity 
 of Gods Nature, which cannot be more than One ; we 
 fay that is but One God or One Nature which is God: 
 But whether that Nature may not admit of feveral 
 Per/on*, is another Queftion, and medles not with the 
 Unity of the Nature. But your Different Sets of Vni- 
 tariavs know not what to make of the Divine Perfons, 
 The Socintns Differ from the ArUm both as to the Son 
 and the Holy Ghofl. And therefore can in no Juftice 
 
 derive
 
 The fourth DIALOG V]E. 25 
 
 Derive themfelves from them. Tho', if they cou'd, as 
 will be further fhewn, it wou'd do them little Service. 
 But they neither have Unity with Anus, nor among 
 themfelves, no, not as to the Obieft of their Worfhip, 
 they have not the fame God; fome of them, at this day, 
 making the Holy Ghoft to be God, others to be only 
 a Creature. Some that he is a Perfon, others only as a 
 Quality. &C. 
 
 SOC. But my Author fays, that the Arians and Socini- p> ^ 
 ans efteem of one another as Chriftian Brethren and True 
 Relievers. 
 
 CHR. It is impoffible they fhou'd think one another 
 to be True Believers, unlefs all the bovefaid Opinions 
 can be True, or that it is not Material whether the Ho- 
 lj Ghofl be God, or a Creature ; whether Chrifl had, or 
 had not a Being with His Father before His Incarna- 
 tion. 
 
 And for their being Chriftian Brethren ; If it be only 
 the word Chrifl that does it, then all who acknowlege 
 the name of Christ muft come in, let their Opinions of 
 Him be what they will, tho' fome think Him God, 
 others only a Man. 
 
 The Alcoran fpeaks thus of Him. " The Meffiah, Jefus Trand. ER- 
 a the Son of Marj^is a Prophet, and an Apoftleof God, uih Lond - 
 " His Word, and His Spirit, which Hefent to Mary. Jl 4 t^jJ 
 
 " The Angels (aid to Zjckary, thou (hall have a Soft 
 " .called John, he (hall affirm the Meffias, to be the 
 " Word of God. 
 
 " 1 he Angels faid, O Mary, God declareth unto thee a 
 " Word, from which (hall proceed the Meffias, named 
 
 8< Jefus or (as it is in the Latin Translation of D. 
 
 Pert us Abbas Cluniacenps put out byTheodor. Bibliander) Azo 
 Maria, tibi fumus nuneij gaudium cum verbo Dei, cujus 
 nomen eft' CHRISTVS JESVS, flius Marine, Qui eft fa. 
 
 ties omnium gentium, hocfeculofuturo. Here the Alco* 
 
 -r&n fays, the name of the Word of God is thrift Jefus ; 
 
 E That
 
 The fourth P I A LOGV E. 
 
 That He is the FA& of off Nation*, which the Anno- 
 tator obferves, to be a parallel Phraie to the Defire or 
 ILxftftttb* of the Gentiles, and other like Appellations 
 of Chrift, Gev. 49. and Chap. 22. Efay. it and Zjch. 3. 
 Hag. 2. And He is the Face of all Nations, fays the 
 Alcoran^ not* o*iy in this World, but in the WorU to 
 come. 
 
 So that if fpeaking Great and Honourable things of 
 Cbrift makes a roan a Chrifttatt, the Mahometans are as 
 Good Chriftians as the Sociniays.' 
 
 SOC. If they did acknowledge the Scriptures, it might 
 go a great way. : . ft 
 
 CHjR. They do acknowledge them, only they take 
 the Liberty, as you do, to Interpret them Differently 
 from the Cathalick Chwfh, Thus we read in the Alcoran., 
 
 P'5 I '0 you that have knowledge of. the Scripttresl Believe in the 
 Alcoran, that Confrmeth the old and mw Tejl^iment. 
 
 P . 75. He (The Lord) /ball fay to Jefus, O Jefus Son of MA- 
 rtmember thou my Grace towards thee and thy mother, 
 ewthnedtheewiikthe Holy Gkoft- theedidl injlruft 
 
 SCRIPrVRE andKjiwledge^ the OLD TESTAMENT 
 an* the GOSPEL. Again, / mil teach him the SCRIP- 
 
 P-34. TVRE, the Mrftries-of the Law the OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 3Ji and the GOSPEL. And the Common Appellation which 
 the Akorxn gives to the Jews and Chrijlians, is, ye 
 tbat know the- SCR1PTVR&! And it provokes them 
 to Difpute o\tf of the SCR1PTVRE. ye that knorv 
 
 the SCRIPTVRE tome with words alike true between 
 
 you and us', do I Worfbip other than God? Be ye Wit- 
 nejfes that we btlievt in God, ye that under ftand SCR IP' 
 TVRE Difput* not the Law of Abraham, to rvit, if he 
 Otjcrv'd the OLD TESTAMENT, or the GOSPEL they 
 were taught after him, perhaps you will acknorvlege your Er- 
 ror; ye that, have Difputed what ye knorv not ! Abraham 
 was no Jew nor Chriftian, he profiled the Unity of God, 
 he. was a true Believer, *#d. not of the number of Infdels* 
 
 The
 
 ' 'The fourth DJ ALO G V E. 27 
 
 People, and particularly tboft that follow A him of fat 
 , as alfo the Prophet MdHOMET, and all true Bf 
 havers have known the Truth of his : Law . Q ye that 
 know the SCRIPTVREl Uo -./?# M^&oafy corned : the 
 
 Commandments of >God~>-~ Obferue-. e$~A$iy \ yfait you . hafte 
 
 learned in SGR'tPTVRE,:.-4d>.i$4t']jtwJr?*4-^Rwi*- 
 
 her- -that He (God) iaught you $C.RIPTV>\ arid know- -> 
 
 lege, and that after this came a Prophet) that ctrfrnfd the p. 36* 
 . Dottrine that was tattght po% 9 jh& you might believe His 
 Weds. 
 
 Thcfe ate the words of the Alcoran; And you fee 
 they make no more of Mahomet, than a Prophet who 
 fucceeded Chi //, as Chrift fucceeded Mofes. And as Chrift 
 confirm'd Mo/es Law, fo Mahomet Confirms the Gofyet 
 of Chrift. The latter ftill confirms the former. Say to 
 them, (fays the fame Chapter of the Alcoran) we believe p. 37* 
 in God 9 in what He hath infpired into as, in what He 
 infored into ABRAHAM, 1SMAEL, ISAAC, JACOB, 
 and the TRIBES, in what was ordained by MOSES, by 
 JESVS t and generally all the Prophets from God. Such 
 as /ball be Impious towards JESVS having believed the 
 BOOfcS OF MOSES, and (baU augment their impiety again& 
 MAHOMET, {hall Err Eternally. And there is a great 
 Deal more to the fame purpofe. 
 
 SOC. At this *ate they advance Chrift beyond M*- 
 homet. . 
 
 CHR. Only, That Mahomet was a later Prophet, and 
 fp the laft Meffenger from Heaven. Otherwife they do 
 not fpeak fuch things of him as they do of Chrift. They 
 acknowledge Chrtft to be born of a Virgin, by the Ope- 
 ration of God, in the fame terms with the Scripture ; 
 They fay not fo of Mahomet, whom they do not call 
 the Meffias, the Word of God, and the Face, or Lord of 
 the Worid to come, as you have heard the Alcoran fpeak 
 of the Lord Cbrift. 
 
 E ,* SOC.
 
 28 A 7W fourth D I A L G V E. 
 
 SOC. Wherein then do they differ from the Chriftian 
 Church ? 
 
 CHR. In the fame points which the Socinian * do. They 
 allow not the Trinity nor Divinity of Chrift. And they 
 Interpret thofe Texts which fpeai of the Trinity and 
 Incarnation of the Word) as the SociniAm do* 
 p. And they acknowledge not the Satisfaftion of Chrift, 
 but they put him into the number of Interceffors with His 
 Divine Majefy : Which 'are exactly the Socinian Te- 
 nets. 
 
 And I wou'd not have you afliam'd of it, but accept 
 Mahomet for one of the Fathers of Socinianifin. He is 
 not half fo Scandalous, nor fo Heterodox as Ebion, and 
 Tbeodotian, and that ftring of Hereticks whom your Hi- 
 ftorian has mufter'd up for the Primitive Founders of 
 Socinianifm in its purity. Some of thefe us'd a different 
 Go/pel from ours, others rejected all our Scripture, but 
 fome parcel that pleas'd themfelves, they corrupted the 
 Scripture, and it being Prov'd upon them under their 
 Hands, they caM'd it Mending and Improving the Scrip- 
 ture. Some of them wou'd not allow Chrift to be Born 
 of a Virgin, but that He was begot by Jofepb, as other 
 Men are. And many other things which I will ihew 
 you by and by, and which grate the Ears wen of a 
 Socinian now, 
 
 Mahomet is much more Chriftian than thefe, and an 
 exprefs Unitarian, but thefe are not fo well known in 
 the World now as Mahomet is. Therefore you wou'd 
 not own Mahomet to be of your Party, leaft the Peo- 
 ple ihou'd Stone you, for they have all a great Averfion 
 to Mahomet: But I afture you, that thefe Primitive Anti- 
 Trinitarian Hereticks were as odious to the Chriftians 
 then, as Mahomet is now. Witnefs St. John quitting the 
 Bath where Cerintkus, one of the Ring-leaders of thefe, 
 came in, faying, he wou'd not ftay in a Place where 
 ther was one of fuch Anti-Chriftian Principles, leaft a 
 
 Judge-.
 
 Tie fourth DIALOGVE. 2? 
 
 Judgment fhou'd overtake him for being in fuch Com- 
 pany. 
 
 Mahomet Succeeded Arius, and fet up his Doclrin, 
 wKich is Contain'd in the Alcoran, with fome Additions. 
 And it is Obfervable, that where Aritnifm moft prevaiPd;, 
 there Mtthometifm came in and profper'd. That Men 
 might Read their Sin in their Pumfhment, by the Pro- 
 grefs of their Wickednefs, and having once Departed 
 from the Qhriftian Faith, can now find no Stop or Re- 
 medy. 
 
 And as Mahomet Improv'd ArUnipn, fo the Svcinians 
 have Exceeded even the Alcorax, in their Contempt of 
 Chrifi, as I have fhew'd, bringing Him lower, and ma^ 
 king Him more a Meer M&n than the Alcoran do's. 
 
 SOC. I muft tell you, that notwithftanding all you xix. 
 have faid, we have fome of your Modern and Celebrated The c f e : 
 Chriftian Writers, who Favour our Opinion. And our ^ex^a 
 Hiftory Names three or four of them. Aiiedging 
 
 CHR. This you Urge not, I fuppofe, as an Argument '^.^ oi 
 
 . J i - r ^ r / ^^ c Chnfttan 
 
 onely that it woud Gain fome Credit to your Caufe. ^><rwasf<- 
 'Tis well he can Name no more : But that you may vo ^ ers ? f . 
 not Lofe any Advantage, I am willing to hear whom th 
 he Names. 
 
 SOC. He names two of the Church of Rome, and two 
 of the Reformed,, with a ffth one Sandius, whom he 
 calls the ArUns Hiftorian. 
 
 The firft he names is Erafmus, who Liv'd and Dy'd Erafms*- 
 
 in the Communion of the Church of Rome. Yet he was 
 
 not a Bigot Papift, as he was far from being a tborow 
 
 Proteftant. His great Wtf led him from many Errors of 
 
 Rome. He begun well, but it was left to others to Finifh. 
 
 Yet might he be Vindicated in a great Meafure from what 
 
 your Hiitorian lays upon him, but that is not our pre- 
 
 fent bufmefs. Neither does what is here alledged, prove 
 
 him to be either ArUn, or Socinitn. For tho' Phil. 2. 
 
 6,. be a Principal Argument of the Fathers againft the
 
 30 ne fourth D I A L G V E. 
 
 Arians, and tho' Erafmus fhou'd fay (for your Author 
 quotes no place where he fays it) that this Text did 
 not prove againft the Arians^ yet it is no Confequence, 
 that Therefore no other Text does prove it. One Man 
 may think that a proof, which another does not. 
 
 And as to his fecond Proof from what Erafwus fays 
 upon Eph. 5. 5. I do not find in him what your Author 
 fays in that place. Yet, if he faid it, viz. That the word 
 God us'd Absolutely) always fignifies the father, this 
 wou'd not prove him a Socinian. For we grant the 
 word God Frequently to mean the Father ', as I have al- 
 ready told you, But that it does not Always fo, you may 
 fee Col. 2. 2. where the Apoftle fpeaks of the Myftery 
 of God, and of the F At her, and of Cbrif. Where the 
 word God t us'd Abfoluttlyis diftinguifh'dfrom the Father, 
 as from Chrift, and this is there calPd a Myftery ; which 
 it were not, if it were fpokcn all of one Perfon, as you 
 v/ou'd have it : But on the other hand, where it is not 
 fo Diftinguifb'd, we grant that it Always means the jp4- 
 tber, but not in Exclufion of the other Perfons : For the 
 word God us'd Abfofattly, means the Divine N*ture 9 
 which Includes all the three Perfons. He next quotes 
 Erafmas's Scholi* on the third Tome of St. Jeromes 
 Epiftles, but he names not which Epiftle, that you may 
 not find it without reading him all over. He fays Eraf- 
 wus there denies the Arians to be Hereticks, and that 
 they were Superior to our Men in Learning and Eloquence. 
 To which we muft demur till he quotes the place. 
 But 1 am fure if he fays the Arians are not Hereticks, he 
 Contradicts himfelf, for in the, fecond Tome of St. Je<- 
 ronfs Epiftles, in his Argument of the Epiftle adverfas 
 Lucif triads p. 154. Edit. Bafil 15 ??. he fays, that 
 no Htrefy did more grievoufly airlift the Church, 
 than that of the Arians. And in his Paraphrafe upon 
 John 2. i. no Trinitarian can fpeak more full and ex- 
 prefs than he does. He calls Chrift, " ex Deo <vero> 
 
 " verus
 
 He fourth DIALOGUE. 
 te verus Deus: Very God, of 'very God. That He was the 
 if Eternal Word, with the Eternal Father, and that this 
 *' Word) did fo come forth from the Father as never 
 " to part from the Father. Neither did he fo adhere 
 " to His father as an Accident adheres to its SubftaNce, 
 " but He was God of God, He was God in God, He 
 " was God with God, becaufe of the common Nature 
 <c of both their Divinities. Thefe two who were alike 
 w in all things, nothing did diftinguifh but the Proper- 
 41 ty of the Begetter, and the Perfon Begotten. And tho' 
 16 this Word was God Omnipotent, of the Omnipotent, yet 
 *' being diftinguifh'd by the Property of His Perjon, 
 *' He was with God the Father not in any DhTimilitude 
 " of Nature. Neither was He Made, or Created by the 
 ^ Father; but by this His own Word, Co-eternal to 
 lc Himfelf, the Father made all things, that He did make, 
 " whether Vifible or Invisible ; by the fame He Governs 
 " all things, by the fame He reftores all things, not ufing 
 " Him as an Inttrument or Minijler, but as a Son of the 
 " fame Nature, and fame Power with Himfelf. So all 
 " things whatever are, came from the Father as the 5u- 
 " pream Author, but by the Son, whom He begot from 
 " Eternity, Equal to Himfelf in all things, and without end 
 " does Beget. Thefe are the Words of Erafmus, and a 
 great deal more in the fame, and many other places, to 
 the fame purpofe. And if you will make a Socinian of 
 this man, you need not defpair to gain Athanafius too, 
 and prove him to be an Aria*, Nazaren, or what you 
 pleafe. And to (hew you what Opinion Erafmus has of 
 the great Ingenuity, which your Author braggs he ex- 
 preffes for the Socininns, upon the fame Chapter fohn i. 
 he lays, They greatly Err front the Truth, who think that 
 the nerd of God is pofterior to Him who brings it forth, 
 AS Amsng men the MM is before the Speech, and who 
 reckon the Word of God, by which God the Father made 
 nil things^ among the things which were made : Sed craffior
 
 The fourth DIALOGVE. 
 
 eft illorum Error But their Error is more Grofs who fup- 
 pofe that Chrift then began to be the Son and Word of 
 God, when He WAS born of ^ the Virgin Mary. 
 
 Whether this be the Opinion of the Socinians, you can 
 tell, and whether calling their Error Grofs and greatly di- 
 ftant from the Truth, be fo mighty a Complement, as 
 your Author wou'd force from this great man to the 
 Socini&ns* 
 
 SOC. My Author quotes Erafmus Epift. to Bilibaldus, 
 wherein he fays, he cou'd be of the Arian perfwafion, if 
 the Church approv'd it. 
 
 CHR. Your Author is very unwilling to be brought 
 to the Light, his Quotations are all Dark, he does not 
 care to have them look'd into. In Erafmus^ Epiftles 
 there are no lefs then Thirty [even to Bilibaldus. And 
 you may fuppofe it was too much trouble for your Au- 
 thor to name the Epiftle, then you wou'd have found 
 it out too foon, that one which he means, I fuppofe, 
 is the third Epiftle of Erafmus*s Twentieth book of his 
 Epiftles ; where fpeaking his Senfe of the great Authori- 
 ty of the Church^ he fays, it WAS by her Authority he be" 
 lieved the Canonical Scriptures* And then indeed it is no 
 wonder that he fubmits every thing elfe to her Autho- 
 rity. And Magnifying his Deferance to the Church, he 
 fays, he cou'ct agree with the Arians And Pelagians, if the 
 Church had approv'd what they have taught. Now the 
 natural Coofequence of this to me, is, That Erafmus 
 thought thefe the moft Peftilent and Abominable He- 
 refes he cou'd think of, for it had been no great mat- 
 ter to fubmit to any Rational or Tolerable Do&rin ; but 
 to Ihew the vaft Authority of the Church, he fure 
 wpu'd name fome mighty thing. But why did your 
 Riftorian leave the Pelagians out of this Quotation t He 
 wou'd not have them join'd with the Arian;, for dif- 
 covering his Plot, for lie does not pretend to favour 
 the Pchtidns, or that Erafmus was a Pelagian. And this 
 
 Quotation
 
 The fourth D I A L G V E. 33 
 
 Quotation wou'd make him as much fo, as an Arian* 
 But what ever comes of the Integrity I muft Com- 
 mend the Ingenuity of your Hiftorian. 
 
 SOC. You are Satyrical, you know not how to mifs 
 a Blot, let us fee if you can find the Like in his next , . 
 Inftance of Grotius, who, he fays, is Socinian all 
 
 CHR. It is all over, for he quotes no particular place, 
 but defires that you will take his word; or elfe be at 
 the pains of Reading oyer all Grotius Works. 
 
 SOC. I had rather take his word, at this time, for I 
 have not now fo much Leafure. But yet he names his 
 Notes uponj^tf i. i. and fays, that his Annotations are 
 a Compleat Syftem of Socinhnifme. 
 
 CHR. He has a better Perfpe&ive then I can fee thro', 
 for I cannot find any fuch thing in his Annotations, but 
 I think the direft Contrary. 
 
 SOC. Indeed my Author fays, they are written fo Artificially 
 and interwove with fo many different Quotations t that he 
 has covered htmfelf^ and his Senfe of that Portion of Scrip- 
 ture, from fuch as do not Read him Carefully. 
 
 CHR. I am fure he has covered hirnfelf in that place 
 N from being fo much as fufpefted of Socinianifm, for he 
 interprets John i. i. In the Begining, to be the begin- 
 ning of all things, and to mean Eternity ficut mos eft 
 Hebrtis JtLternitatem fopulariter Defcrihere ; that it was a 
 Common and Familiar ExprefFion among the Hebrew, 
 whereby to defcribe Eternity. 
 
 This is point blank Deftru&ive of the Socinian Prin- 
 ciple, which allows Chrift no Being before he was born 
 of the Virgin ; and therefor the^r are forc'd to interpret 
 thefe words. In the Beginning, to mean only the Be- 
 ginning of the Goffel. 
 
 Then Grotius does moft Learnedly tell us the Accep- 
 tation of the term Logos, agreeable to what we have 
 already difcours'd, viz That it was firft with the Jews, 
 
 F and
 
 34 The fourth VIALOGVE. 
 
 and he fuppofes it taken firft from Gen. i. where Gods 
 Creating is exprefs'd by, God. fatd, Let ther be Light ; 
 Let ther be a. Firmament, drc. Thence the notion of 
 the Word of God. From the Jews, the Chaldeans, had 
 it, and from them, the Greeks. And that it was by thi 
 Word, that God Created all things, he tells you how 
 Philo the Jew calls this Word, the Image and Son of God, 
 how the Jetv/Jb QabaltSs^ and the Pythagorean and Pla- 
 tonic Philofophers had invented many other Emanathns 
 from God betides His Word, or Logos. 
 
 Thefe Emanations they call'd Jt/atf^ and reckon'd 
 the Logos as one of them. And this Do&rin the 
 Gnoftics followed : And Grotius fays, that it was exprefly 
 againft this trJat St. John wrote, and proves that all 
 the appellations which they gave to their feverai J&uts, 
 as maker of the World, only Begotten, and Saviour, did 
 belong only to Cbrif, who was the Logos ; And this 
 Learned Annotator obferves, that our Saviour is call'd 
 by thefe names in St. John's Writings, and not in the 
 other Holy Writers, tho' they Deliver'd the fame thing 
 in effea. ' 
 
 And this account of St. John's ufing the term of 
 Logos, and Vindicating It, from the other fancifull J&one s 
 or Emanations, which the Heathens, Cabalifs, and from 
 them the Gnofics join'd with k, and prefer'd fome of 
 them before it, is a Confirmation of what I have alrea- 
 dy faid upon that point. 
 
 And Gr<tf/0/// fays, that St. John by thefe words, In 
 the Beginning was the Word, rejects the figment of the 
 Gnoftics, who faid, that from the Proarchs, after man^ 
 ages, the Nout, or Mind, pas born ; then from the Nous 
 the Monogene, or only -Begotten, and irom that the Logos. 
 All which St. John confutes, by rejecting all thefe but 
 the Logos, making that front the Beginning, that is, as 
 Grotius explains it, from Eternity, and applying to It 
 the term of Mowgwt, QnlyBegotten, and all the other 
 
 Epithets
 
 The fourth D IALO GV E. 35 
 
 Epithets of their feveral jEones^ and {hewing that they 
 belong only to the Logos. 
 
 And here I cannot but take notice how Grotius (upon 
 Mitt. 24. n.) Joins Cerinthus, and Ebion together, as 
 thofe who perverted Chriftianity, by mixing Judaifa 
 with it, not only as tolerating the Jewifb Rites (which 
 we know the Apoftles did at firft) but by acknowledg- 
 ing Judaifen to be the only way to Salvation, which was 
 Preached, as by other Prophets, fo alfo by Chrift. And 
 he fays, that St. John wrote much againft thefe, and 
 that thefe and the like, are thofe whom Chrift calls the 
 Falfe Prophets, St Paul, men fpeaking perverfe things (and ^ 2o 
 thefe fhall arife of jour own Selves, they fhall be Chrifti- 2 cr. n. 
 arts.) Falfe Apoftles, Deceitful Workers, Transforming them- '3'. 
 felves into the /tyoftles of Chrift, by whofe Opinions the Fditk 2 
 of many is overthrown. 
 
 This is Grotius** Judgment of Ebion, and the Ebionites 
 whom our Hiftorian has fet down, as the true Socini&ns 
 of the firft Age. 
 
 But to fee farther how good a Socinian Grotius was, 
 upon John i. 14. he fays, That the Logos fliew'd Him- 
 felf in our Human Nature, that He might advance us 
 Men to the Divine Majeftj. And apply s to this i. Tim. 
 13. 1 6. God was manifeft in the Flejb. And what Iren*- 
 
 us fays f Varbum ait, unit urn fuo plafin&ti- The Word, 
 
 being united to His own IVorkmnnJbif, was made a Pafi 
 ftble Man. 
 
 Upon thefe words, The Word was God: John. i. 2. 
 hs tells us plainly how that the Word was made 
 ynonymous with God, and quotes Juftin, calling Chrift the 
 God who rvas before Agti* And Tkeofhilus, that the word 
 is God 9 and Born of God. and much more to the (acne 
 
 r ?'- 
 
 purpofe 
 
 But to end this matter, Grotius having Given the rea- 
 fon beforetold why St. John treats more exprefly of the 
 Lo>os, than the other Holy writers/fays thus, " Ctteri 
 
 F 2
 
 The foartb DIALOGUE. 
 
 " Scriptures Evavgeliorum The other 
 
 " thought it fufficient to exprefs Chrift's Divine Naturt 
 
 u from His Admirable Conception, His Infinite Power in 
 
 " working Miracles, His knowledge of other Men's 
 
 " Hearts, from thofe things which befel concerning His 
 
 " Death, Refurretfion, and Afcention into Heaven, finally 
 
 " from the promife of His Perpetual Prefence, of fending 
 
 e the Holy Ghojl, Forgiving Sins, Judging Mankind. 
 
 " But John, according to the Neceffity of his times, 
 
 *' and in the beginning wou'd give Him the name of 
 
 " God, and the Power flowing from the Eternal Foun- 
 
 u tain. Thus Grctius. And how this agrees with the 
 
 Socinians who hold that Chrifl had no Being before He 
 
 was Born of the Virgin, I leave you to Judge, and 
 
 what reafon your Hiftorian had for his great Boaft, that 
 
 Hift. Vnittt. Grotius WAS So&inian all over. That he has interpreted the 
 
 P- 3 2 whole Bible according to the mind of the Socim.ins. Arid, 
 
 that their is nothing in all- his Annotations which they do 
 
 not Approve and' Applaud, and that his Annotations are a 
 
 Compleat Syftem of Socinianifm, not excepting his Notes 
 
 iff i R 
 
 on jebn. I. 2. 
 
 SOC. I am fure no Socinian can either approve or 
 applaud, what you quoted out of Grotius, Eipe- 
 cially his Notes upon John i. i. But our Author per,- 
 haps means that he is only a Sotmian as to the Trinity: 
 For as to the Incarnation, and Pre-exiftence of Chrift be- 
 fore His Birth from the Virgin, I think we have no Ti- 
 tle to Grotius. 
 
 CHR. The Incarnation and Trinity are clofely link'd to- 
 gether, fo that you cannot fuppofe the Ivcarnatiov, with- 
 out firft fuppofing the Trinity ; for you cannot fay that 
 Chrift is God, without more Perfons than one in God^ 
 
 But Grotius de Verit. Rel. Chrift 1. 5. . 21. Vindi- 
 cates the Do&rin of the Trinity from the objection of 
 Poljtbeifm, and fliews that it was not unknown to the 
 Jew. ft He fays that Pbilo the Jew, oftentimes makes 
 
 fgree 
 

 
 The fourth $ / A L G V E. 37 
 
 4< Three to be in God t and calls the Reafon or the Word 
 ct of God by che name of God, the maker of the Worldy 
 " neither Unbegotten, as is God, the Father of all, nor Be- 
 " gotten fo as Men are. That the Cabalifts diftinguifh 
 "God into !H>? Lights, which fome of thenv call by 
 " the fame names \hztC hriftians dtyviz,, of the Father of 
 >! the 6Vw,;or the 'Wordy and of the //0/y G/;0/?. And 
 ** he fays, that it is ConfelTed by all the Hebrews, That 
 " the Spirit by which the Prophets were Infpired, is not 
 " any thing Created, and yet it is Diftinguifh'd from 
 "Him that fent it; like as alfo that which they com- 
 ." monly call Schechina. Now many of the Hebrews have 
 if*' taught, that that Divine Power, which they call Wif* 
 " dom, fhall dwell in the Meffias'^ whence, the Chaldee 
 " Paraphafe calls the Meffias, the Wvrd of God: And he 
 a is called by that Auguft name of God, and alfo, of 
 .": Lord} by Davul, Ifaias, and others. Thefe are the words 
 iof Grotius. . And nothing can fpeak the Trinity more 
 plainly, in Contradiction both to trie Arians and Socini* 
 tins. The Spirit not being any Created thing, is againft 
 the Arians, and Mr. Bid/e^s Sociniam who hold that it 
 is' Created; and being diftinguifh'd from the Sender there- 
 of, does Confound all the other Parties of the Sosimans 9 
 who hold that the Spirit of God, is not diftinguifh'd 
 from the Sender thereof. And the Jem diftinguifh Sche- 
 china from the Spirit^ and make the Mefflab to be this 
 Sc-kecbiita, for which you may fee more Authorities^ 
 in the Annotations upon this place in Grotius^s Works^ 
 Printed in London. 1679. Tom. 3. and this both proves 
 the Trinity, and that the Mefliah is one of thQ-PerJbxs. 
 
 SOC. But what fay you to that which my Author j#. P / 3 , 
 Objects of Grotius, attacking the Socinians in his youn- 
 ger Years, in a principle Article of their Do&rin? But 
 being^anfwer'd by J. Crellius, he not only never reply'd, 
 txat thank'd Cri/lius for his Anfwer; and afterwards
 
 3 8 The fourth D I A L G V E. 
 
 publifhing fome Annotations on the 'Bible, he interpreted 
 the whole according to the Mind of the Socinianst 
 
 CHR. You have had a Tafte of thefe Annotations, 
 and whether they be wholly according to the Mind of 
 the Sod mans ; and from hence you may guefs at the 
 truth of the other part of his Allegation : But if you 
 wou'd have full fatisfaftion, confult Grotius^s Works 
 of that Edition I have juft now nam'd ; and there before his 
 defence of the Ctitholick Faith as to the Satisfaction of 
 Chrifl againft Fauftus Soeinus, you have his Letter to 
 Ger. Vofflus clearing himfelf as to this matter of his An- 
 fwer to Crellius, and his Faith, both as to the Trinity , 
 and the Satisfaction of Chrift, and vindicating himfelf 
 from the Imputation of Socinianifm. 
 
 It is a ftrange thing that you will make a Sociman of 
 a Man, who writes againft Socinus by Name ; and throws 
 it off as an Afpertion w be thought to be a Sociia. 
 Nay he not only clears himfelf, but fays of Holland and 
 Weft- Friejland that none there did Defend Socinus. Nemo 
 iU hactenus inventus eft qai Socinum Defenderet (Tom. J. 
 Lond. Edit. p. 112.) 
 
 peuvius. SOC. Let us go to the next. My Author fays, That 
 $ P-32. j) p PetxviuS) the moft Learned of the Afrits , has gran- 
 ted that generally the Fathers who livM before the Nicene 
 Council, and whofe writings are preferv'd, agree in their 
 Doclrin concerning God with the Nazarens or Socinians, 
 (and concerning the Son our Lord Chrift, and Holy Spirit 
 with the Arians. 
 
 CHR. : This is a Condemnation of the Socinitins : For, 
 as before is told, they differ exceedingly from the Arun^ 
 both as to -Christ and the Holy Gljott, the Arians make 
 the Holy Ghott a Creature, the Socinians fay that he is 
 nothing different from God, but is God. The Arians are 
 for Chrift'-s Pre exiftance before He was Born of the 
 Virgin \\hs Socimans fay, that He had no Being before 
 He was Born of the Virgin, &c. 
 
 And
 
 The fourth D I A L G V E. 
 
 And if the Anti-nicwe Fathers were for the Arians in 
 thefe Points, then it is a Demonftration that they were 
 againft the Socinian Opinion. So that ftands Gondemn'd 
 on all Hands. 
 
 But your Author has Quoted no particular Father, only 
 fays it in the General; And I have fhown you in . 
 febius, the names of feveral of thefe Fathers, whom he 
 Quotes againft the like Allegation of the Socmians\ and 
 I have before fhew'd you, that the Tenets of the Ante- 
 nmm Fathers were fully on our fide, in the Examination 
 of the feveral Texts which prove the Trinity. But your 
 Author does not Quote the place, where Petavius fays 
 what he alleges from him, and confidering your Author's 
 Ingenuity in other Quotations wrudi I have examined, 
 he may be juftly fufpe&ed in this. But I do not think 
 it worth the while to fearch over Petavias's Works for 
 it, becaufe I know it is a common Topick with the Pa- 
 fifls to difcredit tthe Ancient Fathers, and run all into 
 the Authority of what they call the prefent Church. And 
 therefore if your Author cou'd find a Jefuit faying fo, it 
 wou'd be no great Argument. For I allow the Papifts* 
 and To* to agree in a great many things, even when you 
 feem to be moft contrary to one another, as your dear 
 Friend Grotius has obferv'd, who makes the like diffe- 
 rence 'twixt Popery and Socimanifm, as 'twixt Tyranny^ 
 and unbridled Licentioufnefs, (oper. Grotij Londini. 1679. 
 Tom. $. p. ii2.) this he fays inanfwer tv Sibrandtts, who 
 obferv'd that the Socinians had rather take fart with the PA- 
 PISTS than with the REFORMED. 
 
 SOC. The next my Author Quotes for a Socinian^ is 
 of the Reformation^ it is Epifcopius : Who is he fays, fo p. 34 
 much efteemM by the Englifb Divines. 
 
 CHR. And defervedly for a Learned Man, But now 
 for your Proof. ' 
 
 SOC.
 
 4 o The fourth D IAL OGVE. 
 
 SOC. My Author Quotes the Book and Chapter in 
 him. Epijco. fttjlit. Theol. 1. 4. c. 52, 33, 34. and he fays 
 that Epifcopiu's Teems to be An an. 
 
 CHR\ He is more modeft with Efifcofijts than he was 
 with Grotius by much. - Grotius was all over, fcflr.. 
 Jolutefy Sbci'niaul Epifopius only /^w/ ta fo. Then he does 
 not fo much as pretend to him as a Socinian, but what 
 he fieinf to be is only -4xw. That is, he wou'd have 
 us to loofe him, tho' }ie cannot gain him to the Seei- 
 nian Party ; and if his fo pofitive Boaft? of Grotius come 
 off as you have feen, we can exped little from his fear- 
 ful, feems to be, of Epifeofius. But however, let us hear 
 what he fays? What does he charge upon Epifcopias 
 from thefe Chapters he' Quotes? 
 
 6'OC. Th^c he faid the Father is fo frft, as to be firft ! 
 in Order '& c. in time)- 
 
 CHR. Let me flop you, does he fay that Eptfcopius 
 faid thefe words (i. e. in time) 
 
 ^OC. I fuppofe not ; for they are in a different better, arid 
 in a Paf-'eMefs^ But they are in Expofition of the pre- 
 ceeding words (in Order) becaufe my Author fuppofes 
 that whatever is firft in Order, muft be likewife firft 
 in Time. 
 
 CHR. You "have feen the contrary to that, in the re- 
 lation 'twixt father -jind -Son, and it might be fliewn in 
 many other Inftarices. But your Author wou'd flip it 
 in, in a (hort Parenfkefis, whereby it might pafs for 
 Epifeopius's, or otherwife being heedlefly granted might 
 carry his Caufe. Therefor in anfwer to him, we fay, 
 with Epifeopius, that the Father is frft in Order, but not 
 in Time. And Epifiopias ftys nothing in this, diftant. 
 from the Catholick Church. 
 
 SOC. But he fays, that to make three equal Perfons 
 in God, or in the God-head^ is to make three Gods. 
 
 CHR. That is, fo Equal, as to have no Superiority of 
 Relation among them, which we do not fay. We fay, 
 
 they
 
 The fourth DIAL OG V E. 41 
 
 they are Equal in their Natural Perfections \ but not fo 
 in their Natural Relations. And in this Epifcopius does 
 not differ from the Church. 
 
 SOC. He denies that the Lord Chrift is the Son of 
 God by fubn&ntid Generation, from the Fathers Substance 
 or ffence. 
 
 CHR. He does not deny it. He does indeed find fault with 
 defining the Modus or Manner of it, according to all the 
 Extravagant Invention of the Schools, which he reckons 
 up. c. $3. and they are indeed Extravagant andmoft Dan- 
 gerous, as Epifcopius there fets forth, but determins nothing 
 only that fuch Queftions ought not to be ftarted, are 
 not neceflary to be believ'd, becaufe not ReveaPd, and 
 have bred much trouble in the Church, whofe Creeds at 
 firft were plainer and fhorter than of after Ages. But 
 if the ftarting of Heresies impos'd that fatal necelBty 
 upon the Church, where will the blame lie ? It is a great 
 Misfortune to be forc'd to fight at all, but if my Life 
 be AfTaulted, I muft choofe the lefler Evil. 
 
 I think it a very great hurt to the Church, and a Judg- : 
 ment fent from God, that this queftion we are now up- 
 on fhou'd be broach'd among us. But pray who began? 
 If you throw your Books about, and boaft of them as 
 Unanfwerable, and overthrow the Faith of many, you 
 force us to enter the Lifts, tho with Grief of heart at 
 the occafion of the Quarrel, And then you make the 
 very Quarrel an argument againft us. Why do ye Dif- 
 pute of thefe things ? Can you not let them lie in their 
 primitive fimplicity ? O that you couM have done ( o ! 
 Was there ever any Creed or Cawi* made but agaiaft a 
 Herefy that was then in being, and fpread before fuch Creed 
 cr Canon was made ; To be under Phyfck is a difconfo- 
 late Life, but the Remedy fhews that the Difeafe was 
 firft. Yet yow charge your Phyfician as the Caufe of 
 your Difeafe. God .in his mercy, heal the breaches of our 
 Sion, for they are many. 
 
 G But -
 
 4 i The fourth DIALOGVE. 
 
 But to return to Etifcopius, if it were my Task I couM 
 fhow abundantly his principles as to the Trinity and 
 But I think it fufficient to have anfwer'd 
 
 your HiftoriAns Objections. 
 
 I will only tell you, that Epifeopius did not only believe 
 the Trinity, but that it was clearly and plainly and 
 moft perfpicuoufly Reveal'd in Scripture. And he difputes 
 thisagainft M<Z;WJ/?, who wou'd have the Scripture ob- 
 fcure in this point, that he might bring us to the Au- 
 thority of the Ckarch. Epifcepius does indeed find fault 
 with the un-neceiTary School-D'ftinftions, as to the man* 
 ner or modus of thefe Divine Myfteries, which is not re- 
 veal d, and that this has provM an offence and ftumbling- 
 block to the Jews, and other Enemies of Chriftitnitj; and 
 all good Cbriftians do join with him in this, and that 
 we Ihould keep as clofe to the Scripture as poflible, 
 efpecially in thofe myjieries which we had not known 
 but by the Scriptures. And he gives for a Reafon of this 
 that the Scriptures themfelves are fufficiently dear And full 
 as to the Trinity, Incarnation, &c which are expreis'd, 
 in Scripture, non fdum perfeffe not only perfectfy, fed e- 
 tiam Dilucide, but liioft clearly^ adeo ut neque Ecclefi* De- 
 cifione- - fo that we need neither the Decifion of the 
 Church, the Conclufion of Do&ors, nor the Decrees of 
 Councils in this matter, (concio fecund* De Conf. Incredulit. 
 JuAtorum.) That God is one, is of it felf evident ia 
 Scripture, and, fays he, (Injiit. Theol. I, 4. C. 18.) that 
 He is FtrJjcfi Son, and Holy Gboft, is no lefs clear from 
 the Scripture ; and irom hence you may Judge what fort 
 of Art** thi Efifcopius was. And what advantage it is 
 to your Caufe to have namM him. Indeed he refufes 
 to tell the mtnntr, how thefe three are one, as not necefTary, 
 becaufe not Reveal^, and we all join with him. 
 SOC. The next he! name* is C. SAtrdius. 
 CHR. Tfiis is he \vhom you have already quoted as 
 an Ariav, the Ari&n opinion, fays your Author (p. 'j4-) 
 
 My
 
 The fourth DIALOGUE. 43 
 
 be fee n on their fart in their Hiflorian Ckr. Sandius. 
 And now you bring him into the Number of the Cttho* 
 lick writers. You wanted one to make up the Number. 
 But tho' he cannot be produced as a Catbolick, yet if he 
 fays any thing material, tho' an ArUtt^ we may hear 
 him. 
 
 SOC. My Author fays that C. Sandius wrote on pur- 
 pofe to prove that all Antiquity was Arian. p-35- 
 
 CHR. But does he fhew any of his proofs ? 
 
 SOC. No. He only fays that Sanditts wrote with that 
 
 - r 
 
 Defign. 
 
 CHR. Then I will oppofe to him Eufebius and the 
 Fathers he quotes who were before the Council of Nice, 
 and were not Arians. But if by all Antiquity being Art* 
 an, he only means, as in truth, he can mean nothing 
 elfe, that the feeds of the Arian Herefy, were fown even 
 in the Afoftles time, and fo were from Antiquity, we do 
 readily grant it, and have prov'd it. 
 
 SOC. He fays, this Sandius under the borrow'd name 
 of Civgnllus wrote a Treatife call'd Scriptura Trinitatis .#. 
 Revelatrix ; /where, under pretence of aflerting the 2V/- 
 nity, he has as much (as he cou'd) defeated all the ftrengths 
 of the Catbolick Caufe, and fhews that there is no Con- 
 fiderable Text objected to the AriAns or Socintins, but 
 is given up by fome or other of the Trinitarians them- 
 felves : fo that among them, they have given away the 
 Victory to their Ad verfaries. 
 
 CHR. This if true, ferves only to fhew that your San- 
 dius was a treacherous Enemy, betraying under the fhew 
 of Friendfhip. And for his faying that fome Trinitaria 
 or other has given up every Text, it makes no more 
 if Granted, fwhich it is not) than this, That one Text 
 may ^appear ftrong to one, aad another Text may ap- 
 pear more convincing to another. But tho' I lay afide 
 fuch a Text, and chufe rather to infift upon Another , it 
 does not follow that I give up fuch a Text 9 becaufe I 
 
 G a-. wave
 
 44 The fourth DIALOG V*E. 
 
 wave it ; yet after all, I muft abfolutely deny the 
 tion, whether it be your Author, or Sandius makes it, 
 and I put it to the proof, and fay that ther are many 
 Texts, as to the Trinity which no Learned Trinitarian 
 will give up. But I will retort this upon your Author. 
 That ther is no point of the Vnitarian Doftrin, as di- 
 ftinguifh'd from the Trinitarian, but what is given up, 
 as I have already Ihewn, not only by Arians againft 
 Socinians, and Socinians againft Arians ; But by fub-divi- 
 fions of Arians againft Arians, and Socinians againft 50- 
 cinians, Bidleites, Anthromorphits, &c. And afl againft the 
 Nazarens, Ebtonitcs, and others taken in for the Primi- 
 tive Unitarians,*** you call them, and even by thefc 
 Ancients among themfelves, hardly two of them agree- 
 ing almoft in any point, wherein they broke off from the 
 Church. So that among them (to ufe your Author's words) 
 they have givw awaj the Vitfory to their AdverfarieSj 
 with a witnefs. 
 
 As for the Advantage he expefts from Dr. Burnett 
 relation of Van Parr the Dutchman, with which he ends 
 his firft Letter I (hall fay nothing ; at this time. I 
 will not Anticipat what a Living Author (hall think fit 
 to fay in his own Defence. Left 1 miftake his mean- 
 ing. 
 
 Thus you have feen his ftrength from Hi/lory, and 
 his fuceefs in gaining fome men of nams to favour his 
 party. 
 
 T HE
 
 T H E 
 
 FIFTH DIALOGUE 
 
 A General View and Application of what 
 has beea laid. 
 
 r 
 
 CHRISTIAN. w ET Us now from the feveral 
 
 Heads upon which we have 
 Difcours'd, take a General Viem % 
 of the State of the Controverfy 
 .on Both fides. And fee where the Difficulty lies of 
 Believing, arid the Prejudices that Detain Toa or Vs. 
 SOC1NIAN. Our Prejudice lies in the feerning Con- 
 tradition to Kerf/0* there is in your Faith. And we 
 wonder that do's not Byafs you to Come to our fide, 
 
 CHR. I will not repeat what has been faid upon 
 that Head. But then you ought to Confider, That 
 it muft be fome very Strong and Powerful EVIDENCE 
 that Srvays Us againft that Bjafs of feeming Reafon. For 
 Every Man wou'd make his Frith as Eajy to him as he 
 Cou'd. No man Loves Difficulty ; But in fome Cafes 
 k cannot be Avoided ; And the Gretttf Matters are not 
 to be attained without it. This
 
 4 The fifth V1ALOGV E. 
 
 them: which (by yertue of the diftindion of Latria 
 and Dulici, of a Supreme and Inferior^ Divine worfhip) 
 was the only Foundation and Excufe of the PagMt, Ariarr, 
 and Roman Idolatry ; and Excufes all alike. 
 
 But now in the fenfe of thofe Sociniatts, who make 
 the Word and the S fir it to be only Qualities then you 
 give this Excellent Senfe of thefe Texts; (viz;) There 
 are Three in Heaven. Firft the Father* The Second, 
 His Power or Wifdow, And the Third His Power or 
 Wijdom. Which is not only to make a Man and his 
 Spirit to be two ; without being two Perfons : but to make 
 his Spirit to be ifaond and a third thing from it felf. 
 For, as we have faid before, This Scheme makes Gods 
 Word and Spirit to be the fame thing, to mean no 
 more than His Power or Wifdom, which are not diftinft 
 from Him. 
 
 Thus you have God Commanding to Baptize in the 
 name of Himfelf, and of Himfelf, and of Himfelf. 
 
 And whofoever {hall Blafpheme againft Himfelf, fhall 
 be forgiven ; But he that blafphemes againft Himfelf fhall 
 not be forgiven; 
 
 p. 9$. Our Author fays p. 25. we are out. in Counting, when 
 we fay three Perfons, and one God,, which he, in his 
 Courtly way, calls -Bruia/1 in usouu t 
 
 (2.) I wou'd defire to know by what Rule of Arithmetic 
 
 Th h 5"" nc rcc k ns one Gd i nto ^? f > without Diftindicn of 
 
 7vjv m or e Perfw*) for tn ' s ^ a Trivitj .- But whether it be more 
 
 itotctomtu- Rational than our Trinity, do you judge, We both 
 
 -if heid Wh b a y ^ ld Three in Heaven, ^4%;, ^- andH<# S*^ Thi s 
 cbrtfiAns. is a Trinity: Herein we agr ; ee, but in the account we 
 give of it, we differ mightily. ? 
 
 PFf fay there are ^ra in Heaven, really Dijlinft 
 from one another : and therefore reckon them three, 
 tho' they agree in the fame Nature-, which he makes 
 the Difficulty. But, at the fame time, he fays ther are 
 three in Heaven. Which three are not diftiwuifbt at 
 
 - v - - . i o ._ 
 
 all
 
 The Fifth DIALOGUE. 5 
 
 all from one another; but are only one in every refpecr,. 
 We fay they are -three in one Refpect that, is in refpeft of 
 their three Perfons ; and/# another Refpect are one, that is, in 
 Refpecl: of their Nature, which is but one. On the other 
 hand, The Socinians fay they are one, and yet reckon 
 them three in the felf fame Refpeft, i. e. in Refpecl of their 
 Nature, without any Difference of Perfons. We fay one 
 is three, by being Dijlinguffid into three. They fay one 
 is three, without being Dittinguiflfd at all. Which of 
 thefe is the beft Reckoning, and beft Reafon is left to the 
 -Readers Judgement. 
 
 And every Scripture bears the fame Argument where 
 thefe three are reckon'd. Of which there are multitudes 
 of Texts that we have not quoted. It is in the Preface 
 and Salutation of almoft every Epiftle ; with St. Paul fre- 
 quently, we have remembred. And thus St. Peter begins. I.PW. 1.1. 
 To the Eleft fome of which according to the foreknowledge 
 of God the Father, thro* Sanftification of the Spirit unto 
 Obedience, and Jprinkling of the Blood of Jefus Cbrift. ^ j 
 
 And our Author gives a very fair Confeffion again ft, him- The sotini- 
 felf, as to all his Interpretations. For after he has done^^5 ir 
 with the Scripture Texts, he owns Ingenioufly, p. 158. o/tobTco"n- 
 That they differ from the Church in franflating fever al, trar y to the 
 and in Interpreting all the before-cited Texts. Church. 
 
 SOC* I do remember this, and it has much offended 
 me, That we fhould confefs out of our own Mouths, 
 That we take a way of our own, contrary to the Church 
 .of .Chrift. ;,! 
 
 .CHR. Sure he muft give fome very extrarordinary 
 Reafon for this : Nothing lefs than exprefs Revelation, 
 or .Democrat ion it felf, can fupport a Man in a War 
 againft the whole .Chriftidn Church. 
 
 SOC. He repeats the old Difficulty of three being 
 vne y and thence concludes that their Interpretations and 
 Tranjlations, ought to be admitted, and thofe of the Cf?VRCH 
 and TRINITARIANS rejected. 
 
 CHR*,
 
 The Fifth DIALOGVE. 
 
 CHR. And you have teen him run himfelf into grea- 
 ter iAbfordities than thefe he pretends to avoid. 
 ( 4 .) >Afld this brings us juft where we began, which was, 
 pretended That the $ocinuns wou'd admit of the Translations and 
 not Interpretations t>f Scripture, which the Church recom- 
 . meads, and wou'd x>.wo the Trinity to be ' fuffidently 
 RevealM in Scripture, if it did not appear to them to be 
 contrary to their own Reafon, if ther were not difficul- 
 ties in it, which they >cannot Solve. And therefore it is 
 not any Abfurdlty .in the Scripture which hinders them 
 to believe ; for while they go upon this Argument, if 
 the Revelation iwers jievers. fa exprefs, they wou'd never 
 fubrait itp sit, biic ^ffcrekw iaodOglofs while words wou'd 
 bear it, of which' we have feen very fair Examples. 
 And he -declares in ekprefs Terms, that whatever Doflrin 
 appears, Abfurd dd Contradictory ought to be rejetfed, how 
 16^. Agr$eabk,fwvtr>.'ii mny^feem to the weer Chime And Jingle 
 nfa cf-fome few Text*) as 1 he' Reverently expre&s 
 
 \\>v to v.ftVi\^ ' 
 
 . He gives two Parallel Inftances. One of the An- 
 ihrofomofflrits, and Mr.-Biddle, That God has Human 
 Parts and Paffions, 'which we reject (fays he) becaufe it is 
 Agawft Reafo*,- tho* many Text* fpeak of God after this 
 manner. 
 
 (50 CHR. Thcr was a neceffity'to fpeak of God after this 
 
 - rnanner > beeaufe otherwife we fhou'd not underftand 
 Him. For we can apprehend nothing but after the man- 
 n er of Men. But the reafon was quite contrary why 
 ^i^w^*^'^ Himfelf as Three One. You wiU 
 in Cafe of the p0t >jfay that this was to Gondefcend to our Gapacitfes. 
 Trinity. ^ n( j therefor if this had not been a neccflary Truth, 
 God wou'd not, as I may fo fay, have troubled our Un- 
 derftandings with it, feeing ther was no other neceffity 
 ia,,the whole World for Revealing it to us. 
 \\$gfd*My 9 Thefe Exprcffions to be delivered into the 
 Hands of God, to be hid under His Wings^ &c. are com- 
 mon
 
 The Fifth DIALOGUE. f. 
 
 mon and known Figures of Speech, nor are taken lite- 
 rally, even when apply'd to Men. If I fhou'd iay, I 
 will hide you under my Wings ; No body would un- 
 derftand it as if I had real Wings and Feathers, but only 
 that I wou'd protect you and keep you fafe, as Birds 
 do their Brood under their Wings. 
 
 But the word WAS God, and if her are Three in Heaven^ 
 have no Relation to thefe fort of Expreffiqns. 
 
 Thirdly, Other Scriptures tell us, 'That Gad is a Stint, 
 Invisible, lwf> ^ffible, &c. and therefor where He is fpoke 
 of after the manner of Eody y we muft underftand it 
 FigurAtivy^w$& & M 
 
 But ther are no Scriptures which fay, That God is. 
 not Tri~*-uhe*.: And therefor th'ofe' which fay He is fo, 
 muft ftand in their plain literal Senfe, and are not pa- 
 rallel to thefe Scriptures which fpeak of God after the 
 manner of Body. 
 
 fourthly^ The 'Scriptures all edged by the Anthropomor- 
 fhites are plainly Figurative, as has been faid, even when 
 apply'd to Men. But the Scriptures which are brought 
 for Proof of the Trinity, are not fo much as pretended 
 to be taken in any Figurative Senfe, as The Word, was 
 God) Raptiz,wg M the Name of the Father , Son And Holy 
 Ghofl. He that fms agaiv/t the Holy Ghofl (hall not be 
 forgiven. Ther are three that bear . Record ttt Heaven, 
 &c. 
 
 b-The Socinians do not pretend to efcape thefe Texts 
 by making them figurative^ for ther is no Figure -ML 
 them, they take other ways to anfwer them which we 
 have feen. Therefor this Inftance of the Anthropomof- 
 phits is <iot parallel to that of the Trinity. 
 
 Let me here take notice, that Mr. Biddte, w > hom bur 
 Author quotes here as an Anthropomor^hit^ is notwith- 
 ftanding own'd by him, and other the SoeinUns as a 
 Brother Socmian and a great Rabbi of theirs, whofe works 
 
 H 2 they
 
 The Fifth DIALOGV E. 
 
 they have. Re-Pri#ted, with his Life Prefix'd, making 
 him both a Saint and a Martyr for their Religion. 
 
 Concerning whom, I only now obferve how tender 
 Men are to the miftakes of their own Party. Mr. B'ddle- 
 and his Followers are own'd as Socinians, as very good' 
 Vxitariaits, tho' they will take the Figurative Expreffi- 
 ons, which fpeafc of God after the manner of Body, in a 
 Literal Senfe; that is only a fmall miftake in them, it is 
 nothing but the old Herefie of the Anthropomorphits, and 
 deftroys the firft Notion of a God, to make Him a Body, 
 and Matter, which makes it impoflible for Him to be 
 God. AD this lhall be pardonable in a Socinian ! 
 
 But on the other hand, when we take thefe Texts of 
 the Trinity Literdfa which the Socinians themfelves confefs* 
 cannot be taken .Figuratively, this i& Brutall in us, as our 
 Author civilly treats us. 
 
 To digeft Anthropomorphitifm, and boggle at the 7V/- 
 mty is draining at a GAt, and f wallowing a. Camel: it 
 is a perfpicuity of Reafon worthy a Socinian / But go 
 on with your Author*,. ^ oj b c 
 
 SOC. He gives another Parallel. Wb*t can be. more ex* 
 f> re f s > ^ys he, Than this is my Body i Tet we rejeft the 
 Dotfrin of TranfubfantiAtioft, bec/iufi it is Contradiftcry and 
 Iwpoflible that the fame Body Jbou*d At the fume time.be in 
 more pJacef than one. 
 (6.) CHR Here he plays both the Socinian and the Jefeit* 
 P e im P^ es > ^at we think Tranfubftantiatibn is contained 
 . in thefe words, This is my Body, and that moft exprefly, 
 What can be more exprefs? fays he, And that tho' it be to 
 exprejty contain'd in thefe words, yet that we rejec^it^ 
 ly becaufe it feems contradictory &c. Herein he infinii^ 
 ates two manifeft faiflioods, Firft, That we think Tran- 
 fubfteintidtion is exprefly contain'd in thefe words, This 
 is my Body, Whereas, we fay, That it is fo far from 
 being exprefly contain'd in thefe words, that it is -not 
 eoflfain'd in them at all. 
 
 The
 
 The Fifth DIALOGUE. 
 
 The Lutherans take thefe words as Literally as the P*- 
 fifls ; and yet our Author cannot but have heard j That 
 they utterly reject Tranfubjlantiott. 
 
 This miftake of his occafions, a fecond, which is, That 
 the reafon of our reject ing T^/^/?*fftatf/0#, is thefeem- 
 ing Impoflibility of one Body being in two places at 
 once. 
 
 This indeed is a great Objection, And God never 
 Commanded any thing Contradictory to Human Senfl. 
 But this is not our Chief Reafon ; Our Chief Reafon 
 againft TranfubftAntiAtion, is, that it is not reveal'd in 
 Scripture. But that it is againft many exprefs Re relations of 
 Scripture : for Example, i. Cor. u. 27. Math. 26 29. 
 i. Cor. 10. 17. As for thefe words This is my Body, we 
 fay, Tranfubftaatiatiof* cannot be inferrd from them; 
 And we put the Iflue upon this. 
 
 SOC. You fay, That God never commanded any thing 
 contradictory to Human Sevfe*. We do often infift upon 
 the Parallel 'twixt Tranfubftantifition and the Trinity, and 
 fay that the Trinity is as Contradictory as that or more, 
 
 CHR. I know you do, And it is a common place 
 of the Ptpijlt too. But as much without Ground as any 
 thing ever either of you faid. Becaufe TrAfubflantiation 
 is wholly againft fenfe, and the Trinity \s not at all. 
 As I have already Ihew'd. 
 
 SOC, But let me Repeat. Is not the Trinity againft 
 S'enje at all ? 
 
 CHR- No. Tell which of the Sexfis it is againft ? 
 Is it againft your Seeing, or Tafte, or Swell* 
 
 SOC. I cannot fay it is again/} them. But our Senfes 
 cou'd not have found it out. 
 
 CHR. Who ever faid they cou'd ? Every Spirit is' 
 without the reach of our outward Senfes. But that is 
 the reafon why a Spirit is not agunft our Senfes y or Con- 
 traditfory-.tQ them. 
 
 Bat
 
 io The FifthDIALOGV E. 
 
 But TranfubflantiAtion is flatly againft them all. 
 And I do infift upon it, That God never required a- 
 ny man to believe any thing that did C&tndfft any of 
 his outward Senfes. 
 
 So very poor is your Parallel twixt the Trinity and 
 Tranfubfttwtiation. 
 
 Again, we have feen Parallels in Nature, as to the 
 Trinity ; But ther is none as to Tranfabfttntiation. Can 
 you tell us any other cafe where accidents appear with- 
 out Inherance in a Subflance proper for fuch accidents ? 
 Nothing like it was ever heard of, to lead us to any 
 pofTible Idea of it, 
 
 ,70 SQC. We reject both, becaufe w will have no Myfte- 
 
 Concerning r y j n our Religion : and all the Sacraments, their opera- 
 tion , and their effetfs, what they Typify, and what they 
 Exhibit, is, in the modefteft Explanation very M)fterious. 
 J mean your way of explaining them, for we make them 
 as iamiliar and plain as the High way. 
 
 CHR. You do fo indeed. Till they defer ve the name 
 of Sacraments no more than what you have nam'd. And 
 fo you do with all the reft of Religion: But you have 
 ill luck at it, for while you endeavour to make it fo 
 very plain, to avoid all Myftery, you have intangl'd it 
 to the degree of Contradiction it felf, and forcing words 
 out of all the meaning that ever mankind pUt upon 
 them, of which we have feen Liberal Inftances. You 
 have advanced Idolatry beyond the notion, even of Hea- 
 thens., while you owfl a perfort not. to be God, and yet 
 pay him Divine IVorfhip. This takes in the moft Anci- 
 ent, Honourable, and greateft pait of the Vwtaria/v. 
 
 *-w- 7 C7 *I> * * 
 
 Then to make God a Body, with your BidAleit- r OttAri- 
 *ns, to Revive the moft Noiibm of the Ancient Here- 
 fes, and moft Nonienfical, the Avtbroyomoryhits, and 
 Countenancing the Idolatry of making Pictures of the 
 Invisible God, which, if God be a Bdfy of the fhtpe of 
 a Man, with Hwds, Feet, Ejes y &c. can be no great 
 
 fault.
 
 The Fifth DIALOGUE. n 
 
 fault. And all this to make the Scripture P/n/'/i, and to 
 fhun all Myftery in our Religion! 
 
 SQC. But how do you anfwer our Arguments? How^/^. c . 
 can any thing that is Reveal' d be a Myftery t It was a 9. p. 4*. 
 Myttery or Secret before the Revelation of it ; but fince 
 it was Revealed, it ceafes to be a Myftery^m Secret. Un- 
 lefs a Secret difcover y d be a Secret ft ill. 
 
 CHR. That is to fay, fo far as k is difcover'd, it is no 
 fecret, which is, that no Secret ^ is no Secret. But pray, may 
 not a thing be difcover'd in fuch obfcure terms, that tho' 
 I understand fomething of it, yet I cannot clearly appre- 
 hend it* all ? And fo I may have many Searchings and 
 Reafonings to know farther of it, and to underftand 
 the Revelation of it more perfedly. Do you pretend 
 to know all the Book of the Revelations ? Is it not 
 therefore Revealed ? And is ther therefore no My <ftery in 
 it ? I fuppofe you do not deny but our Saviour was Re- 
 veal'd, Gen. j. 1 5. Where it was told that the feed of 
 the woman fbou'd bruife the Serpents bead. And in feve- 
 ral other places of the Old Tefament, wherein He was 
 prophefy'd of in very exprefs terms. But you confefs 
 this to have been a Myfery, till the further Revelation 
 of it in the Go/pel. Upon which I defire you to anfwer 
 your own Queftion. How it was a Myftery after it was 
 Revealed in the Old Teftawent, unlefs a, Secret dijcover^dy 
 be A Secret ftill ? But laftly, is not Heaven plainly Re- 
 veal'd to us in the Gofpel ? Is ther no Myftery remain- 
 ing in it? We norv fee thro* a gUfs Darkly, fays St. P*ul, * Cor. 13.12. 
 but then face to face. And to fee Darkly is a true De- 
 fcription of Myftery, I know an Ingenious Socinian 
 may call this an abfurdity, and fay, how can you fee 
 Darkly ? For fo far as you fee, it is not Dark. And I 
 will not take pains to anfwer it~ 
 
 THE
 
 oi 'aid:i fls f>fl 
 
 ; !,<'-'( oh" v/od ;?ufl 
 
 ^VvV-i. r. 3-J O? f.t>lj^J3 ii t li'-;,v. :?->} 
 
 >j *" >r i^'i nl JQ^ rt'ii - 
 
 * - i *i ., ; w* ?i 'it i .! 
 
 14 -R .j> 
 
 10 
 
 01, fcnA 
 
 '
 
 ' " ', t ro.f 
 ..>/! >&Um . ,];-.Y 
 
 - 'eirh F-nfv ' i- 
 
 V ; \ V-.T H 
 
 CTVHTU" 
 
 olA 1 rl 
 
 n 
 
 our Sins. 
 
 Of the Satisfaction made by CAr/}2 for 
 
 ' .)."-' Jifjrn ,JJSTI 
 
 CHR1STUN. f*r~^HER is one Great P/tf yet be- 
 
 hind, which is Built upon the 
 Dottrin of the Trinity, the D*. 
 vinity and Incarnation of Chrif^L 
 and that is the Doftrin of SAtisfAffion. Of which your 
 Author likewife fpeaks. And this W0r& will not be 
 Compleaft without Confidering that main Foundation of 
 the CbriftiAn Religion. 
 
 SOC. Let us then go on with our Author. He fays, 
 whereas befides the above c'tted Texts, the Orthodox ob- 
 jeQion : That if Chrifl were not God as well as Mw y 
 He cou'd not Satisfy the Juftice of G<?^ for our S/*/, or : 
 be a full Atonement for them. The Socinians anfwer, . 
 (i.) That Chrift.is a Propitiation and Atonement fbc 
 Sin, is, .a Demonftration that He is not God ; for God 
 doth. not Give- or Mafo,.but Receive Sausfadioa for our--' 
 Sins. - 
 
 I CHR.
 
 HefextbDIALOGVE. 
 
 ,CHR. God Gave His Soft to be a Propitiation for 6V#. 
 i,hk, And Received from Him Satisfaction for our Sins. 
 having made And this proves Him to be both God and M*//. God 
 
 mo^mS becaui " e none el(e cou ' d P a y ^^ Satisfaction, for ,//?. 
 '#/> Goodneff offended. And Man, becaufe that, which 
 Offended muft make the Sttisfa&iott, But Human Nature 
 cou'd not make this Safajaffion, In that it was weak" 
 
 Rom. 8. 5. thro* the F/e/b, therefore, fays St. Paul, God fending His 
 crvn Son in the Likenefs of Sinful Fle/b, and for Sin y or 
 by a Sacrifice for Sin (as cue Margent reads it) son* 
 demned Sin in the Flefh. 
 
 SOC. If God gave or fent His Son, then it was God 
 who paid the Ranfom to Himfelf,, 
 
 CHR. In that fenfe no doubt, He did, as the Apoftle 
 
 !LCor. $. ip.fp ea k Si G* WAS wCkrift, Reconciling the world to Himfelf, 
 ' It was God who found out, and afforded us this ad- 
 mirable means. 
 
 He exalted the Manhood into God, united Hitman Na- 
 ture into one Perfott with the Divine Nature, whereby 
 man might become worthy to expiate for his offence. 
 And, to compare this with Cafes which are fami- 
 liar amongft our felves, nothing is more common than for 
 a man to endeavour to enable his Debtor to make fa- 
 tisfadion for his Debt ; by adding to his Stock, putting 
 him into the Method of Gai, obtaining for him offices, 
 preferments, &c. And, in this Cafej when a Debtor has 
 recovered himfelf, by the kindnefs and munificence of his 
 Creditor, and when he has with thankfulnefs, paid his 
 Debt : No body objeb it as an Abfurdity, That, by 
 this Method, the Creditor has paid himfelf. It is fo far 
 true, that if it had not been for the Creditors Goodnefs^^ 
 and his Management, his Debter wou'd never have 
 been able to have paid him ; and in this Senfe, he may 
 be faid to have fatisfied himfelf; becaufe the Satisfacti- 
 on given himfelf, mpv'd from himfelf, and was carry 'd 
 on upon his Stock ; But, becaufe it was paid by the 
 
 Debtor.
 
 The fixfh D.LA..LO G V E. 3 
 
 Debtor, being thus Inrich'd, it is not ftrilly calPd fa- 
 tisfying himfelf. 
 
 And thus it was, that Man paid his Debt to G<W,the' 
 lie was wholly enabPd to it by God, and without God 
 cou'd never have done it, \- 
 
 All his fufficiency is of God. And after this manner 
 it is that men are fa id to Beftow upon God, and that 
 God accepts it as fuch, and rewards them for it. You 
 know the free-will-offerings in the Law, and the Con- 
 tribution for building the Temple are calPd their offer- 
 ing wittingly to God. Tho' David acknowledges to God, 
 that all this ftore that we have prepared, cometh cf l Chr 2 6 
 Thine hand and is all Thine own, yet this hinders notitf. 
 what David there fays, that he had offer'd them of his 
 proper Goods. And at the fame time confeffts to God, 3 . 
 of thine own have we given Thee. 14- 
 
 And now be Judge your felf, whether my Giving, 
 or Beftowing, does not argue that I have lefs depen- 
 dance upon the perfon who Receives a Boon from me, 
 than I have upon my Creditor to whom I am Bound 
 to Pay my Debt > 
 
 Yet you can well enough difgeft our Giving to God, 
 who Gives us all ; and at the fame time cry out up- 
 on our Paying any thing to God, as an abfurdity, tho' 
 he requires it from us, and calls it a Debt upon us. 
 
 But take another reafon. It was God the Son who 
 was Incarnate, and paid the Satisfaction to His Father. 
 Here it is one Perfon making Satisfaction to another Per* 
 fon, and fo your Objection is wholly over. 
 
 By this you fee how necefTary the Doftrine of the 
 Trinity is to the Satisfaction of Cbr-if. Chrift Himfelf 
 did' San&ify His human Nature. Fvr their fakes I San- job. 17. 19. 
 tfify my felf. And then offerM it up as an acceptable 
 and fufficiently worthy * Sacrifice to His father. He 
 Rais'd from Death His Human Nature, freed it from 
 Prifon, as having difcharg'd one Debt, and by His own^ t I0>1 ^ 
 
 I 2 Power.
 
 4 The Sixth DIALOGUE. 
 
 Power. He took His Life again, as, of Himfelf, He had 
 p. 13 <5, laid it down. Thus in aH things, Out of his own ftock, 
 He paid our whole Debt to His Father \. 
 
 SOC. The Socinians anfwer. (2.) They wonder that 
 Chrift tho' a man only, fhou'd not be judg'd a fufficient 
 Satisfaction and Propitiation for Sin, when the Sacrifice 
 of Beafts under the Law, was accepted as a Full At- 
 tonement and Satisfaction, in Order to Forgivenefs, Lev. 
 .6. 6. 
 
 (2.) CHR. I wonder much more, That they fhou'd fee 
 How the Le- fo ^jfofly B ]i nd as not to f ee that fa Le , j Sacrifices 
 
 sal bitcrincss . -*- i/- i- // * 
 
 were Accept- were not accepted for their own rvorthtne/s, but only as 
 ed as Sony*- types of the Sacrifice of Chrifi, which only is fufficient 
 to make Atonement and Satisfaction to the ^uftice of God 
 for us. And St. Paul gives this for the reafon why 
 ther was a necefBty of Chrips Sacrifice in order to For- 
 givenefs. For, fays he, It is not foffible that the Blood of 
 Bulls and of Go At s fhou'd take away Sins. Heb. 10. 14. 
 (?.) SOC. This is all our Author fays, as to this point, 
 The Neceffm g ut j wou id gladly ask why ther was a neceffity 
 
 of a SMtsfaai" . o.-^ rt - u *r ^ /- j - 
 
 $n from the to make Satisfaction to the jujtice or God r It is 
 
 nature of 5- n ot call'd Injuflice in me, if I forgive a Debt without 
 any Sbtisfattion. 
 
 CHR. What is it call'd then ? Is it eall'd Ja- 
 Jlice ? 
 
 .SOC. No. It cannot be call'd Jajlice ; for Jujlice 
 wou'd exacl: to the Uttermoft farthing. It is call'd Mer- 
 fj: to Forgive is Mercy, and riot Jit ft ice. 
 
 CHR. Right, and in Men ther is a mixture of both, 
 and fometimes we exert our Jujlice, and fometimes our 
 Mercy. We have our proportions of each : And in fome 
 men their ^uflice is Greater than their Mercy ; and in 
 others their Mercy does exceed their Jufiice. 
 
 But in God it is not fo. He is both to the utmoft, 
 that is, Ivfinitetj. His Juftice muft not take any thing 
 fixm His Mercy ) nor His Mercy from His Juftict, every 
 
 one
 
 The Sixth DIALOGUE. 5 
 
 one of His Attributes muft be Full and Compleat, and 
 Intire in it felF. 
 
 Therefor God is not only Jutf, that is, has fome Ju- 
 ftice in Him, or a certain Meafure of Juttice. But He 
 is Juftice itfelf. Justice in the Abftratt : and whatever agrees 
 to Juftice, to the Nature of Juftice, that muft be in God. 
 
 Does Juftice require///// Satisfaction? 
 
 SOC. Yes. That is the Nature of Juftice. 
 
 CHR. Then God muft require it; for he is Juftice. 
 
 SOC. Where then is his Mercy ? If He be all Juftice, 
 ther is no Room for Mercy. 
 
 CHR. He fliew's His Mercy in fading that Full Sa. 
 tisfatfion for us ; which is Chrift, whom He gave and 
 fent to us. And this Satis} Act ion being In frit, confe- 
 quently His Mercy is In fait ; and fo all His attributes 
 ftand in their full Extent, and the one is not crippled 
 to eafe another. His Mercy is not Exalted, by the Lefs- 
 ning of His Juftice ; but in the Fullflling of it* His Ju- 
 ftice is Exalted, by His finding an Infnit Satisfaction for 
 Sin. And his Mercy is Exalted, in that His Juftice cou'd 
 take no lefs a Satisfaction, which brought His Mercy to 
 a Neceflity of finding fuch a Satisfaction, if it wou'd 
 Save man. Thus His Attributes Exalt and Magnify one 
 another, but they do not Cramp, nor. Incroacb upon one - 
 another. Ther is Harmony, not a Strugle 'twixt the At- 
 tributes of God ; and what feems to be a Difference be- 
 tween them, Unites them the more ftrongly. One Deep 
 cdlelh another ; The Abyfs of His Juftice, calls upon 
 the Aiyfs of His Mercy. His Juftice, requires '&;// -v 
 faction ; His Wiflom, fads it; and His Mercy 9 be (lows it. 
 Here are the three Perfons of the Trinity before de- 
 fcrib'd, viz. P0m*r, Wifdom, Love. And let me pbferve 
 to you, That, as the Will ads from the Laft Diftat of 
 the Vnder ft anting : and the Holy Spirit of Love Proceeds 
 from the Wijdom, which is the Second Perfon of the BL 
 Trinity, as Before has been Explain'd : So, in the Pre^- 
 
 feot ;
 
 The fixth D I A L G V E. 
 
 fent Difquifition we are upon, the Satisfaction due to the 
 Ja/lice of God for our Sins 9 His Love or Mercy do's at, ' 
 fiot Arbitrarily, i e. without Reafov\ but according to 
 the ftricl Rules of His Wifom and Juftice : with which 
 His Goodnefs and Mercy mutt, keep even Pace; otherwife 
 ther muft be a Fraffiox and Division in G0^, that is, 
 among His Attributes^ and one get jhe Better of another. 
 But according to the Do&rin of Saftrf*0io t they Re- 
 commend and Glorify each another ; They all concurr 
 to the fame end, tho' in different manners, tho' they 
 feem to be oppofit, to go againft one another : which 
 they often do among men ; for want of Wifdom to find 
 out a Method to fatisfy both fuflice and Mercy : and 
 therefor one is forc'd to yield to the other, one to 
 oppofe, to be againft the other. But in God y they are 
 all one. 
 
 S0C. St. Barnes fays^ Mercy rejojcetb againft Judg- 
 went) c. 2. i?. 
 
 ' r-r-'t t r r*> < 
 
 13- CHR. That may be laid in Complyance with our 
 . manner O f apprehenfion, which, as has been obferv'd, is 
 often us'd in Scripture .- And in our ForgivenefTes, Mer- 
 cy rejoyceth tgainfl Judgment : we cannot reconcile them, 
 therefore this was fpoke ad Captum. 
 
 But 2dly, our Margent reads it Glorieth-, and the 
 Vulgar has it, Mifericordia fuper exalt at Judicium. Mercy 
 exalts Juftice, or as the Greek will bear it, Mercy Glo- 
 rieth of Jufice. 
 
 And this appears plain from the part of this verfe 
 which goes before ; for thefe words are deduc'd as a 
 Confequence from an Inftance of JttJiice, and even 
 Juftice without mercy ; for be /ball have judgment without 
 mercy, that hath [hew d no Mercy , and mercy Glorieth of 
 'Judgment. 
 
 But if you mean that Mercy Glorieth .again/} Juftice, 
 by way of Getting the better of Juftice, of taking off 
 from the Satisfaction which Juftice wou'd require. How 
 
 is
 
 The ftxtk DIALOG V E. 
 is that done in Executing Judgement without Meny, ? which 
 this Text f peaks of? 
 
 But if you mean that this fevere and exact Juftice 
 does recommend Mercy to us fo much the more. Then 
 the force of the Argument appears plain, becaufe this 
 Juftice was threatn'd to thofe who had fhenfd no Msrcy. 
 So that this Juftice recommends or e xa.lt s Mercy to us.14 
 "And Mercy here Glorietb tffadgment, of this Juftice done 
 to thofe who have no Mercy. 
 
 To Glory or Boa/I of a thing, fhews that we have 
 a KjnAnefs for it r that we are Pleased with it, or as 
 the common faying is, Proud of it: And this fuppofes a 
 Concern for //, and not zn-Emnitj again/I it. And thus 
 it is that the Mercy of God Glorietb of His Juftice- : But- 
 by no means Againft it, in this Senfe, as if His Mercy 
 does thwart His Juftice in the Redemption of Man by 
 Ghrift Jefus. But as the Apoftie (peaks, His Righteouf- 
 nefs (or Juftice, <$W/Wj<0 HW Declared, in His being 
 Juft, and the Jufltfer of him who believeth in Jefus. $ 
 Mercy fatisfying Juftice, Exalts Juftice, and, in that 
 Senfe, may be faid to Glory even againfl it, viz,. That 
 the Debtor is not Ruirfd by Juftice, which Juftice does 
 not Require, fo full fatisfaction be made otherwife; 
 But it is not fo if Mercy will fave the Debtor without 
 fatisfying of Juftice, for then Juftice muft be Reftraitfd 
 and Curtailed and Driven from its Right t forc'd to be 
 Satisffd, without Satisfa&ion given to it. And Mercy 
 Glorying, or Rejoycing againft Juftice, i this Senfe y 
 is being an Enemy to Juftice, Contefting againft its Right, 
 and overcoming it : And this cannot be betwixt the At- 
 tributes of God, without fuppofing God to be at Enmity 
 and Contradictory to Himfelf. 
 
 But pray tell me, fince you will not have Chrift a 
 Satisfaction or Propitiation for your Sin, what it is that 
 
 you make of Him? 
 
 * ^ - ' 
 
 SOG.
 
 The Sixth DIALOGVE. 
 
 (4) SOC. We think He is our Mediator and Inter ceflor; 
 
 lUeSS* And tbat it: is f or H' s Sake tbat God forgives our Sins, 
 
 only. and gives us Heaven. 
 
 CHR. And you think this more Rational, than that 
 God (hou'd need any Satisfaction to His "Jujlice. But 
 now upon the Point of Reafon, does God need any to 
 Mediate or Intercede? Does not He know and confider 
 whatever any Body elfe can fuggeft to Him ? For, who 
 hath known the Mind of the Lord, yr who hath been His 
 Councettort Rom. ii. 34. 
 
 SOC. That is true: But if God pleafe to ordain a 
 Mediator ? 
 
 CHR. And if he Pleafe to ordain a Satisfaction ? Why 
 
 do you reject this as being againft Reafont And yet fet 
 
 up a Mediation* which you confefs has as little Rea- 
 
 font 
 
 (5 ) But how do you folve the Jaftice of (Thrift's Death, 
 
 srinUnsejvl w ^ c : an ^ nd no u ^ e m ^ e World for His Death ? For 
 fortfieifcd* He might Mediate and Intercede without Dying. 
 of Christ. SOC. He Dfd, to Confirm the Truth of His Dotfrine. 
 p]. CHR. Many Men have Dfd for an Error. Dying 
 proves no more than that a Man is ' frongly ferfwaded of 
 th0 truth of what he fays. 
 in Hatred SOC. God took Chrift's Life, to Ihew God's Hatred 
 t0 ^- to Sin. 
 
 CHR, This proves flatly againft you, for Chrift had 
 no Sin of His own, and therefor it muft be, that He 
 took our Sin ( upon Him, and iuffer'd for it, which you 
 will -hot allow. 
 
 Exit let' us leave our own Reafonings and GueiEn^J. 
 they ffre ver^ fallible, and let; us come to matter of 
 Fatl, and fee what God has done y not what we may 
 fancy proper for Him to do. 
 
 (6 , TH& ftrdfigeft Argument to perfwade you in this great 
 
 icon- Point of the Propitiation of Chrift, is to view Him in 
 inHis His .Types of the Old Teftament: And thefe will give 
 
 you
 
 The Sixth PI AL'QGV E. 
 
 you the eafy Senfe of thofe Texts of the -Ne# 
 
 ment, which fpeak of Him as fulfilling thofe Types of 
 
 His. 
 
 Himfelf tells you, That one Jota of the Law can- 
 not pafs till all be -fulfill 'd. 
 
 And St. Paul is fo exad'in the Parallel 'twkt Him 
 and His Types, That he gives this for the Reafonof that 
 feeming fmall Circurnftance in the Sufferings of Chrift, 
 which other wife, I fuppofe, no body had obferv'd, and 
 -that was, That He fuffer'd without the Gats of the City. 
 But the Apoftle tells us- That this was order'd by Pro- 
 vidence, on purpofe that He might fulfill His Type of 
 the Sin-0jfering y or Expiatory Sacrifice, whofe Body was 
 to be buried without the Camps 
 
 And it is notorious, Thac thefe Sacrifices were Ex- Lev.i6.zi- 
 fiaterj or Propitiatory, for Attovement and Satisfaction for 
 Sin. That they were to fuffer in our Stead, and for us: 
 Our Sins were Confefs'd over the Scxpe Goat, and pat 
 upon bis head, and he was to bear upon him all our /#/- 
 quities. This was another Typ e of Chrift, which He was 
 to fulfill to the lead Tittle. 
 
 This was more than^bare Interceedmg. Nay we are Hcb.?.**. 
 plainly told, that ther is no Remiflion without {bedding 0^.2.17. 
 of Blood. ,Ther muft be Death. Death was threatnM 
 to Sin, before it was born. And this, muft be made 
 good. And this did CotifecrMe or 'Devote our Ltfe to 
 God ; that is, lay it under the Curfe of God's Indigna* 
 tion, or ^ftiftice, and for its fake, the Blood (its Vehicle) 
 which therefore was forbidden to be Eaten; rt Was not 
 ours, it was- forfeited to God, by our Sin ; it was a Debt 
 due.-atid muft be paid. This Blood thus forfeited ttf 
 God, He gave to us again, not ta eat, or to our own 
 common ufe, but to a new ufe, to be sr Type of the 
 
 - -v I * f* ^-* k*/>. **"** J 1 *? 

 
 io The fixth DIALOGV E. 
 
 the Blood of the Legal Sacrifices, was {aid to make At- 
 tenement for our Souls. 
 
 Lev. 17. ii. The Life of the Fie ft is in the Blood, And 1 have givm 
 it to you upon the Altar, to make an Attomment for your 
 Souls : For it is the Blood that maketh an- Attomment for 
 the Sou 1 ,. 
 
 Here we are told what it is, that maketh the At- 
 tonement, not the naked Interce/jion, or Mediation, no 
 nor Merit of the Sacrifice.' For it is the Blood that ma- 
 keth an Attonement for the Soul. Ther muft be Payment 
 another Man's Riches will not Satisfy for my Debt, un- 
 lefs he Pay the Debt fop me. Thus Chrift's Merit or 
 Riches, had not Satisffd without His Death ; It was His 
 Merit made His Death to be Satisfactory, which other- 
 wife it had not been for Sin. But His Attual Dying^ 
 was the Aftual Payment of the Debt. And hence it is 
 that our Redemption is Attributed to the Death of Chrift, 
 His Blood, the Sacrifice of His Life for us. 
 
 Do not miftake me, as if this took away His Medi- 
 ation, and Interceflion. No, It was this which render'd 
 them Effe&ual. 
 
 (70 j Be pleasM to Confider with me fome of the 
 Texts which attribute our Redemption to Chrift's 
 "of"" Death. 
 
 He came to give His Life a Ranfom for many 
 
 ^ ag'/ ' My Blood is hed for the Remi]Jion of Sins Except 
 
 3ob.6.& ye Eat His Plejb, and Drink His Blood, ye have no 
 
 Kom. 3. 2-5. Life Whom God has fet forth as a Propitiation, thro* 
 
 4. 25. Faith in His Blood- He was delivered for our Of- 
 
 ^J!* fences Reconcil'd to God by the Death of His Son^r- 
 
 aO.<.i$. by whom we have received the Attonement. He Dyed 
 
 21. for all God made Him to be Sin for us, who knew 
 
 no Sin; that we might be made the Righteoufnefs of 
 47*7.1.4. God in Him. He gave Himfelf for our Sins, He hath 
 3- J 3- Redeem'd us from the Curfe of the Law, being made a 
 for us; We have Redemption thro 1 His Blood, the 
 
 forgivenefs,
 
 The fixth DIALOGUE. u 
 
 forgivenefs of Sins, having made Peace thro' the Blood of c l **> 
 His Crofs. Not by the Blood of Goats and Calves, but Heb.$. 12. 
 by His own Blood, He enter'd once into the Holy Place, 
 
 having obtain'd Eternal Redemption for us Having 10. 19, 
 
 therefor boldnefs to enter into tne Holyeft by the Blood 
 of Jefus i The Blood of Chrift fhall purge your Con- *' 1 4 
 fcience And for this Caufe, He is the Mediator of I5 . 
 the New Teftament : That by means of Death, for the 
 
 Redemption of Tranfgreflions we might receive the 
 
 Eternal Inheritance. He by Himfelf Purged our Sins He ^ t lt 3 . 
 His own felf bare our Sins in His own Body on the jp 
 
 Tree by whofe Strips ye were healed. The Blood i joC'i. 7." 
 
 of Chrift cleanfeth us from all Sin * He is the Pro- 
 pitiation for our Sins God fent His Son to be the 4. 2 [ . 
 Propitiation for our Sins. Chrift Dyed for our Sins ac- , rn 
 
 f f i r * Cf* *S'3 
 
 cording to the Scriptures. 
 
 SOC. What Scriptures does the Apoftle there mean? 
 
 CHR. All of the Old Teftament which relate to the 
 Sufferings of Chrift ; All the Sacrifices and Inftitutions 
 of the Law, which are apply 'd to Chrift; Particularly, 
 of that remarkable Chapter, the 55 Ifaiah. Where it is 
 faid, that He was c< Wounded for our Tranjgrejfiotts, He 
 " Was Bruifed for our Iniquities, The Ckaftifewent of our 
 " Peace was upon Him, and with His Stripes we are 
 
 " Healed The Lord hath laid on Him the Iniquity 
 
 " of us all and made His Soul an Offering for Sin 
 
 *' He (hall fee of the Travel of His Soul, and be Satis- 
 
 fad becaufe He hath poured out His Soul unto 
 
 " Death" and He bare the Sin of many. 
 
 And there you have the exprefs word Satisfied j That 
 Chrift's Sufferings were a Satisfaction to God for; our" 
 Sins. 
 
 And again : Chrift our PafTover is Sacrificed for us. i cor. s . 7. 
 Here you have the very Word Sacrifice-, tho' the former Quo- 
 tations did in effect prove the Came. And every one 
 
 K 2 knows,
 
 The Sixth DIALOG VE. 
 
 knows, that the Sacrifices were appointed to fuffer m 
 Lieu, or in tty Stead of the Perfon offending; 
 ) SOC. But all this may be folv'd on the account of 
 God's Co- God's Covenant, to fend Chrift to Dye for us, Redeem 
 with us with His Blood, &c. #M 
 
 And this is an Eafier way then to talk of Satisfying 
 God's fufite. 
 
 CHR, God teHs us that He is Satisfied and Appeas'd 
 by the Sufferings of Chrift. 
 
 SOC+ That is ftill on account of His Covenant. Be- 
 caufe that was His Covenant, that He would be fatisfy'd 
 by the Sufferings of Chrift: 
 
 OHR- Qod makes not Covenants by Chance, or at a 
 Venture. His Covenant was Declaratory, and in pur- 
 fuance of His own Inherent Retfitudc in Juflice and 
 Mercy. 
 
 In your Scheme ther was no more reafon for God's 
 {ending Cr/J?> than if He had Covenanted to pardon Man 
 \ipon turning of a Straw, or the moft infignificant Adlion 
 in the World. 
 
 SOC. Yes, Chrift, was more an Example of Good- Life, 
 than a Straw, or any other Man cou'd be, and had feve- 
 raT other Endowments uCeful to us. 
 
 CHR-. But as to the point of Appeapng Gcs Wrath 
 towards us, that you make only upon the account of the 
 Covenant, and fo, in that refpet, the Straw might have 
 done as well. 
 
 SOC. And, if Qod had appointed ir, fo it might, for 
 the Covenant of God is Arbitrary, and He cannot appoin| 
 Insufficient means; becauie His appointing it, makes the 
 means Sufficient, the natural Efficacy of the Means is hot 
 Confider'd at all. 
 
 . CH$. Then indeed the 'Straw wou'd have done as well. 
 But'-jS^^Wiwas of another Opinion; for he Argu'd 
 that tha Old Law cou'd not ftand, besaufe of the Weak-
 
 The Sixth D I A L G V E. I3 
 
 nefs of the Means. For it is not poffible (fays he) That 
 the Blood of 'Bulls and of Goats fljould take away Sifts. 
 
 SOC. That is becaufe God did not appoint them for 
 that end. 
 
 CHR. You Quoted juft now Lev. 6. 6. to prove that 
 God did appoint them for that end, and accepted them 
 as full Attonement and Satisfaction in order to Forgive- ' ' 
 nefs, and that he might do fo as well as accept the 
 Sacrifice of Chrifl. But if it was poffible for God to 
 have appointed them for that end, then St. Paul argu'd 
 wrong. Which muft be, or elfe, Ton muft be in the 
 wrong. 
 
 SOC. Did God ever appoint means which were 
 not Sufficient for the end for which He ordain'd 
 them. 
 
 CHR. No fure. Becaufe God will not appoint fuch 
 means. 
 
 Therefor St. Paul argu'd from the Inefficiency of 
 the Means of the Old Covenant, That in order to For- 
 givenefs there muft be a New Covenant, upon better 
 And wore Sufficient means than thofe which were in the 
 Old Covenant. Which, in your Scheme, had been abfo- 
 lute Nonfenfe and Blafphemy againft God, calling His 
 means Inefficient ; Nay, that it was not Poffible to make 
 them fufficient, for, St. Paul infers the .Neceflity of Chrift's 
 Blood being (bed in order to Forgivenefs, becaufe it was 
 not Poffible the Blood of Bulls and Goats cou'd take away 
 Sin. 
 
 SOC. Was it not Poffibk, if God had appointed 
 it? 
 
 CHR. It was not Poffible God fhou'd appoint it: Becaufe 
 it was not a Sufficient Means for Remiflion of Sin : 
 Therefor the Apo8le inferrs, that if God Defiga'd Re- 
 miffirn of Sin, He muft appoint other Mea&s ; and make 
 another Covenant. And that ther was Need and Neceffi- 
 ty for this. For, fays he, If perfection were by the Levi- Heb - 7-n< 
 
 *&*/
 
 14 The ftxtb DIALVGVE. 
 
 tical Priesthood, what need was tber for another 
 
 1? and after another order?- And tber is A difanulling of 
 
 the Commandment going before, for the WE/4KJVESS, and 
 
 8.7- UNPROFITABLENESS thereof- for if that fr$ Co- 
 
 9. 23. venant Jtad been fatdtlejs, then jhotfd no place have been 
 fought for the fecond If was therefore neceffary, that the 
 patterns of things in the 'Heavens jboifd be purifed with 
 tbefe; But the Heavenly things themfelves with BETTER 
 Sacrifices than thefe. And it is of NECESS1TT that 
 ,8.3. Cbritt -offer: Becauft the Legd Priefts, His Types, did 
 offer. 
 
 So that you fee God did not make new Covenants, 
 for Covenant fake. .And that if bare Covenant wou'd have 
 done, one Covenant was as good as another. But that 
 the Covenant had regard to the means, and to the End. 
 And the Covenant of the Law .cou'd not do it. It was 
 Impoffiblei dfuvanov. Rom. 8. 3. in that it was weak. There- 
 for God fent His Son, &rc. 
 
 Gal 21. If ther had been a, Law given which COVLD 
 have .given .Life, Verily Righteoufnefs had been by the Law. 
 But fays the Apostle (Heb. 10. i, 2.) the Law being 
 but a Shadow of Good things to come, eotfd never with 
 thofe Sacrifices make the Comers thereunto perfect; 
 for then, as he argues, wou'd they not have cea fed to 
 
 be offer'd and therefore their ceafing was, becaufe 
 
 they were not means Proportionable to fo great an End 
 as the Remiflion of Sin. 
 
 In (hort, God's Covenant in Tending Chrift was with 
 
 refpeft to His Jaflice, which cou'd not without fulji 
 
 Payment, be Satisfied : And if the Blood of Bulls and Goats 
 
 cou'd have done, by vertue of a Covenant, it had not 
 
 been Juftice in God (according to any Notion we can 
 
 have of Jujlice) it cou'd not have pleased .the Lord, as 
 
 .jfay. 5r the Prophet fpeaks, to Bruife .Cbrijl and put Him to 
 
 .<> Grief, and to make His Soul an offering for Sin, when 
 
 .the offering of a Bullock wou'd have done as well: If 
 
 Rigbtc-
 
 The fixth DIALOGUE.' r 
 
 Righteoufrtefs cou'd have come by the Law, then Chrift is 
 dead in vain. Gal. 2. 21. 
 
 SO C. Crellius in his Book touching one God the father, ( 9 .) 
 in the Gonclufion of the work, Treats of the Satisfacti- 
 on of Chrift, and fays, It is a great hindrance to Piety: s tf ,/ 5 /^ 
 for if CAr//Z has paid the whole Debt, what need weobftruft&pi- 
 Do any more ? Nothing can be required from us r "> 
 
 CH#. Yes.C/>r//? does require from us a livelyand ftedfaft AUS, 
 F^/V, in that Satisfaction He has made for us,(which he can- 
 not have who does not Believe it) together with fincere 
 Repentance and Amendment of Life. And then His- Satis- 
 f aft ion will be apply'd to Us, by our Faith. This is the 
 Condition, that is, Faith- and Repentance : And this is of- 
 fer'd to All. And full SAtisft&ion is made for the &'.* 
 of the whole World. Yet All have not the Benefit of 
 it. Becaufe All will not accept of the Conditions. Let 
 me give a familiar Example: Suppofe youflhou'd Pay all 
 the Debts of the Prifoners in a 'Jail, and open the Doors, 
 on Condition that All who Acknowledg'd your Kjndwfs* 
 and wouM Go out, fliou'd be Free. And there were 
 Some among them DefpisM your Kjndnefs, and wou'd 
 not go out, prefering the Lazy .and Sordid Life of a Fr/- 
 fon, before the True Liberty : cou'd you fay that their Debt 
 had not been paid ? And yet it wou'd be true, that they 
 were never the better for it, but the worfe. It wou'd 
 be an aggravation of their future Bondage. 
 
 What a grofs Conception had Crellus of the Nature , Difference 
 of Sin? He look'd upon it only as a lump of Money . to wi** of tin,- 
 be paid down : That we run in Debt to God as a man an 
 does to his Creditor ; fo that God wou'd lofe his Money 
 if it were not repaid to Him, and fo being paid by a- 
 notLer, God is no Lofer, and the Debtor has no more 
 to Do, he owes nothing to God his Creditor , But may^ 
 now Defy Him as out of His reach ; Need be Pious no 
 more, Love, Fear, or Truft in God no more! This is the 
 Sociniw Argument againft the Satisfaction \ It wou'd hin- 
 der
 
 1 6 The Sixth V IAL GV E. 
 
 der Piety \ And all this, becaufe Si is callM z.Debt. 
 But the Sopbiflry con fifts in not Diftinguifhing- aright 
 'twixt the Debt of 6/0, and of Money. Gtj* does not 
 Lofiby Sin, as a MaAX^j his Money. ThS isaGrofs 
 thought. 
 
 Bdt Sin is an O/^'. again** & and Goodnefs^ that 
 to Love. is againft G<?d, for G0*J is Love. 
 
 , And the Greater the Qoodnefs againft which you Offend,, 
 your O'ffevc'e is the Greater. The Greater Lsi>e has been 
 fliown to you, the more your Ingratitude, if you be not 
 fenfible of it. 
 
 ( I0 .) -And the Greater Mifery to your felf too. For Love 
 The ft. is Htppinefs-, aad Confequently the Want of Lovs muft 
 
 i^muft hbc My'fyl&to^Hyt M A ** ce and al] torment. 
 Require, 11 by j >Now: itotfa ^(ft t \fft the Fo^f/", that is, in the 'Nature 
 the Neceffiy Q f \ Love, eVer to Forgive till you grow Swfible 'of your 
 ****** LM* cannot be brib'd to a Reconciliation with 
 Pride, Envy, Ma tite^ or what is contrary to its own A^. 
 tare It miift H^e thefe, by the fame NeceJJlty that it 
 is its fd 
 
 '-*Aiid thfer b-an Exaft Jf/tfice in Love; It will re- 
 quire that your ^/^ of your fk///f, hold full proportion 
 to the Goodnefs offended. If I be but a little fenfible 
 for b great Fault, Love will rejet it, it will be a frefh 
 Provocation. On .the other hand, If I be as fenpble as I 
 can, and defire to be more, and humble my felf, and 
 repent, Love will accept, ana improve the fmalleft Since- 
 rity, the Swoaking F lax, QV Brut fed Reed. Whereas all the 
 Torments of Hell will never move its Pity, or one kind^ 
 thought towards Hypocrijy, or any Treachery of Love. Be- 
 hold the Geodnefs, and feverity of Love\ 
 
 SOC. You iky Love will Accept the fmalleft Sincerity, 
 the SiH&Aking 'flax and Bruifed Reed, that is, our Contri- 
 tion, though it be not Proportionable to our Offeact. 
 What need then of any other Satisfaction? 
 
 CHR.
 
 Tbefixtb DIALOGUE. \j 
 
 CHR. This is no Sfrijfi&iox&t all, being, as you fay, 
 Not Proportionable to our Offence. Therefor,, God Can- 
 not Accept it as a Satisfaction. I will tell you prefent- .. 
 ly how He accepts it. But firft you may Confider, 
 That what is Righteous and Pure in the Eyes of Man, 
 is not fo before God. He fays, That we are all as a Jfai. 64.6. 
 1)ttclttm thing, and aU our Righteottfneffes, arenas flthy Rags. 
 Quaf pannus MenftruatA. The moft Impure and Filthy 
 thing in the World, that Defil'd whatever it Touch'd. 
 Now God is Purity it felfV Who Chargeth his Angels^*'* 
 with Folly, Tea, the Heavens are not (lie an in His Sight. 
 How then can He Accept of our Impuriti&s ? He fees 
 Inpncerity and Sift in our Beft Performances, in our very .^ - 
 Right eoufneffes. And Infwcerity is a Sin againft Love. 
 Love cannot Accept of Inpncerity. It is a frefh Offence a- 
 gainft Love. It is Hypocrify, which Love muft Hate by 
 the Neceffity of its own Nature. 
 
 SOC. By this Argument, God muft Hate the Angels too, 
 for He fees folly in them. 
 
 CHR. It is faid Folly, not Sin, The Angels that Sin* 
 fjed are Caft out of Heaven. 
 
 SOC. But God cannot Love Folly more than Sin. 
 
 CHR. No. He Loves not FoHy. But all Created Wif- 
 dom is Folly in Comparifon with the Eternal and //^f- 
 #/'/ Wifdom. And He L0i/fj that Wifdem He has Gi- 
 ven to Creatures, though it bears no Proportion to Hi$ 
 Infinite Wifdom, and is Folly in Refpeft of That. But 
 it is not Sin. For though all Sin be Folly, yet all Folly 
 is not /0. 
 
 But further, we are told, That the very Angels of Hea- The Angels 
 ve are Reconciled and ^fe/tf^ through O//?. To (hew, 
 That Nothing Created is Worthy before G0^, upon its 
 own Account. Thus we Read, That it pleas'd the Fa- 
 fl&w, that in Chrifl {bou>d all Fulnefs dwell. And having C 
 made Peace through the Blood of His Crofs, by Him to 
 
 L Re.
 
 i8 The Sixth DIALOGUE. 
 
 Reconcile all things unto Hintfelf, by Him, whether things 
 in Earth, or things in Heaven. 
 
 pb. i. ic. And again, That in the Difpenfation of the fulnefs of 
 Time 's, He might Oat her together in one all thing in 
 Chrift both which are in Heaven, and which are on Eartk y 
 even in Hint. 
 
 Now if the Folly, though not Sin, of the Angels in 
 Heaven needs a Reconciliation ; How much more all our 
 Grofs and Grievous Sins \ And if all their Righteoasntfs 
 cannot be Accepted, for its own Sake, becaufe of the 
 Mixture of their Folly and Imperfections, which makes 
 them Unworthy to Appear in the Prefence of God, 
 but as they are Accepted through Chrift, who is their 
 Head and Reconciler, as well as ours ; How then Can 
 our Righteoufnefs be Accepted, upon its own Account, 
 which is all Impurity and flthy Rags. 
 
 SOC. What then is the Meaning of not Quenching 
 the Smoking^flax, or Breaking the Bruized Reed, or, as you 
 Infer from thence, Accepting of our Small Sincerity ? 
 
 CHR. That is, as to what is to be Performed on our 
 Part. Our Repentance, and Senfe of the Infnit Goodnefs 
 of God to Us, in the Wonderfull Oeconomy of our Re- 
 demption by Chrift. In this God will Pardon our Imper- 
 fections, and Accept of our Smoking fUx and Bruifed 
 Reed. But he Accepts it not, as any Part of the Satif* 
 P/&49-8. faflion made for our Sin. We muft let that alone for 
 everj as David fays, for it coft more to redeem their Souls.. 
 And no Man can by any Means redeem bis Brother, nor 
 give t God a Ranfom for him. This is perform'd whol- 
 ly and folely by Chrift, and we muft put in for no Share 
 of it, none of the Merit. But pay our moft Dutiful! Ac- 
 'knowledgmentSj in adoring his Goodnefs, who has given to 
 God a fufficient Ranfom for us, and has redeemed our 
 Souls, by the Blood of His Crofs. And this, tho' very Im- 
 on our Part, God will Accept in and through the Me-
 
 He Sixth DIALOGS E. 
 
 nts and Satisfaction made for us by Cbrift. And in 
 That only. 
 
 And to this my Argument drawn from the Nature of 
 'Love perfe&ly agrees. For it is neceffary towards corn- 
 pleating the full and abfolute Notion of the Jaftice of 
 Love, That there be a Sevfibility of the ' Fault, Proportio- 
 nable to the Offence. This is impoffible for Man to do. 
 For an offence againft Inpmt Love, requires an Infnit 
 Senfe of fuch Offence. This Chrift performs, and, taking 
 upon Him our Nature, and our Sin, He offers to God a 
 Senfe of Sin, fully Proportionable to the whole Offence. 
 And then He intercedes for ^His Tounger Brother^ who is 
 as Senfiblezs he can be in his Falv>State,znd, in his Dejires, 
 even Proportionable to his Offence, that is, Infnitlj : 
 
 And is accepted in the Fulmfs of ChriJPs Satisfaction, and 
 the Sivcerity of his own Dejires. 
 
 And it is natural, even among men, thus to accept 
 one perfon in behalf of another, efpecially one Brother 
 for another, or near Relation, the fame Ftefh and Blood. 
 
 But this ftill fuppofes the offending perfon to be as 
 Sevftble as he can : on the contrary, if he perfift Objlinate^ 
 and will not be reconciled, he redoubles his Offence, and 
 his Friends Interceffion is a frefh aggravation of his wick- 
 ed Perverfnefs, and 111 Nature. Thus Chrift's Satisfaction 
 is the ftrongeft obligation to Piety that is imaginable : and 
 he who thinks other wife, and pra&ifes accordingly, wffl 
 never receive any benefit by it. 
 
 And Love and Happinefs being reciprocal, confequent- 
 ly he can never return to Happivefs till he become Stn- 
 fible of Love. So that this Method is even Natural ; and 
 no other way cou'd poffibly either Reftore a Sinner, or 
 make Atonement for his Sin. 
 
 I know this neceffity of fatisfy ing God's Juftice is ge- 
 nerally argu'd upon from another Topick, which is, 
 The Greatnefs and Majeffy of God. And confequently 
 'Sin is canfidtr'd as'ati Offence againft, and a Contempt 
 
 L 2 of
 
 20 He fixth DIALOGV E. 
 
 of Gods Government and Sovereign Authority. And there* 
 fore that the Honor of His Government requires full and 
 abfolute Satisfa&ion. 
 
 And all this is exceeding true. But I chufe rather to 
 explain it by the Nature of God, which is Love : for 
 from hence flows His Sovereign Amthority, and all His 
 other Attributes. And by confidering the very Nature 
 of God, we difcover more plainly the Nature of Sin, and 
 of that Satisfaction, which, even by Nature, is due for Sin, 
 and which only can make Atonement for it. 
 MI.) SOC. You fay that the fenfe which Chrift had of Sin 
 &?- T hat was proportionable to the offence, which is meafured by 
 efp&i r . a the Goodnefs offended, which is lefnit. Hence it will 
 follow that the Senfe which Chrift had of the demerit 
 of Sin did exceed that of all the Damn'd, for theirs is 
 not Infinite. And then it will follow that Chrift had D*. 
 fpair, or fomething worfe, if worfe can be, becaufe the 
 JDamn'd have fo ftrong a fenfe of Sin, as to drive them 
 even into Defpair. 
 
 CHR. Defpair of Gods, mercy does not proceed from a 
 ftrong Senfe of Sin, tho' it fuppofes it. It proceeds from 
 a weak, which is a falfe Notion of Gcd. Hence it is 
 that one man who Hopes in God, may yet have a ftron* 
 ger Senfe of Sin than another who Dejfpairs : but then 
 
 he that Defpairs has not fo ftrong and true a Notion of 
 _ . . j i t - r 
 
 i. 3'iiiMplL c$H;>F,7;: /X' : = r o- r- - i 
 
 Thus Cforijt had a Senje of St infinitely exceeding 
 that of all the Damrfd, even to Eternity .- becaufe he had 
 an Adtqurte Notion of God, and confequently of the///* 
 fnite Demerit of Sin. But, from the fame Reafon, He 
 cou'd not Defpair, which, as has been faid, proceeds on- 
 ly from a Low and Inefficient Notion of the Nature of 
 God. Tho' in the great Cafe of Dereliction upon the 
 Crofs, when he cry 'd out, Mj God t Mj God* wh) htjlthou 
 forfaken me] He fubmitted Himfelf even to that Infir- 
 mity of our Corrupted Nature, as much as cou'd poiTi- 
 
 *':-* 'i -r- * v-J-n-.- ,. f* -4i}-*ffr I* < _ - * . 
 
 bly
 
 The fixth D I A L G V E. 21 
 
 bly be Diftinguifb'd from Sin, and Confift with a 
 right apprehenfion of God; which tho 1 we may fup> 
 pofe in a great meafure Clouded thro' the AnguiOi of 
 Sufferings, and the Load of Sin in its full weight, which 
 merited the Eternal Defertion of the Comforts of Gods 
 Blefled Influence from the Sinner, and which therefore 
 Chrift endured to an Vnexpreffible Degree, exceeding, in 
 W eight ) even the Defpair of the Damrfd-, yet formal De- 
 fpaire cou'd never befal Him, becaufe -it proceeds from a 
 fa/fe Notion of God. 
 
 SOC. You fay, That Eternal Punifhment is the Re- (12.) 
 ward of Sin. Therefore if Chrift did undergo the whole muft^hav? 
 Pvmfbmertt due to Sin-, He,muft have Suffer'd Eter. -suiFer'd IrJr- 
 
 ng fy. nal Puriifo. 
 
 CHR. The Eternity of the Putifbment is only becaufe m 
 Satisfaction can Never be made by the Damtfd. Whom 
 Ju/Iice Detains till they have Pafd the . Vttermoft Far- 
 thing. Which they not being Able to Pay, confequent- 
 ly are Prifoners for Evex. But as Jit ft ice Requires the 
 Vtrerrvoft F*rthing y fo when that is Payd,. fnfiice is 
 Oblig'd to Releafe. That Vttermoli Farthing, which the 
 Nature of Love Requires, as well as of Juflice fas I 
 have (hew'd)- is a Senfe of the Sin., Proportionable to 
 the Offence. WJiich Chritt, in our Nature, having Of- 
 fer'd in full Tail, He Purchas'd the ,Releo/e of that No- 
 Jure. And gives the Bewft.w All who will. Accept of 
 it. Whereas if He had Suffer'd 'Eternttiy, He had only 
 been a Prijoner with us, but had Purchas'd no Redemption 
 
 for U T;- -;; 
 
 -b--Sfi& Jn Anfwe&jtt^yo.ur Arguments Drawn from the 
 Nature., 0^ God, as rj exjdain':d by the Nature of Love, 
 I thirik them too Notional^ 
 
 CHR. It is the Notion God has giyen us of Himfelf. 
 i. John. 4. 8. and 16. Gjjd is Love. And therefor it 
 muit be t^e moit certam, Topick from whence to argue 
 
 blhll i fcn&- . of V i;
 
 ai The Sixth D I A L G V E. 
 
 of this Nature And to fay that this is Notional, is 
 finding Fault with Scripture. 
 
 SOC. I like the other Topick better, that is, to Con- 
 fider of God only as a Great Governor ; and not to ar- 
 gue from His Nature, but only to confider what may be 
 Confiftent, that is, fafe to His Government. 
 -xxii. And in this Senfe I take all His Threats, even of 
 of the E- fj e ii^ to b e no more but Threats, in order to fecure His 
 Government over us : And that therefor He is not bound 
 in Jaftice, or any way, to inflift thofe Punifhments, 
 further then to fecure His Government : And that this is 
 no breach otPromife, or of His word, more than it is in 
 a Prince to remit that Punifhment, which he, by his 
 Laws, has Denounc'd againft fuch an Offence. The 
 Security of his Government is all he has to look to. 
 It is no Injuftice, or f defying bis Word, to Pardon fuch 
 an Offence, or to Mitigate it, to what Degree he pleafes. 
 
 And therefor, tho' God has Ihreatn'd Hell to be 
 Eternal ; He may Remit that, either in part, or in whole, 
 without any Impeachment to His ^ufticf, or His Veracity ^ 
 as He fpar'd the Ninevits after Hs faid He wou'd de- 
 ftroy them. 
 
 CHR. His Threatning of the Ninevits was in order to 
 their Repentance-, Jonah. J. 10. and fo are His Tempo- 
 ral Threatnings to other Nations and Kingdoms, as we 
 are affur'd per. iS. 7, 8, &c. And therefore when 
 they do Repent, the end of that threatning is ob- 
 tain'd. ? .j 
 
 But it is quite otherwife in the Panifhment of Htl. 
 -f'or the Sufferings there are noi: intended for the AmemJ- 
 iinent of the offenders '(which is in order to pardon) 
 But as a SAtisfaftion to Jftfttce^ the time of FsrgivineJ's 
 being over. As when a Malefactor is brought to Juftice, 
 to Dye without Mercy for his Orlence. 
 
 SOC. This is only to fecere the -Gc&trnment againft 
 like offenders for the future. And therefore I faid 
 
 that
 
 The Sixth DIALOG E; 
 
 that God does, and ought to punifh, fo far as to 
 fecure His Government ; But farther than that Gon- 
 fideration, He is not Oblig'd either in Jaftice or 
 Honour . 
 
 CHR. Why? Is God afraid/ Is He in Danger of 
 having His Government overturned? What a poor No- 
 tion have you advanc'd of God's fa ft ice ! 
 
 Befides, this Argument only takes place as to this 
 World ; for no body fays that the Punifhments of Hell 
 are only for Example fake. Therefore it muft be from 
 fome other Conftderation ; and I can fee no other but 
 that of Satisfying the Ju/tice of God. But why was E- 
 ternal Punifhment threatned by God. 
 
 SOC. It was of ufe to have Eternal Punifhments 
 threatned At leafi ; becaufe lefs than that wou 7 d not De- 
 terr Men from Sinning ; flnce we fee that that it felf 
 does not do it, For, 
 
 " The fting of Sin is the terror of Eternal Punifh- 
 ** ment; and if Men were once free from the Fear and 
 " Belief of this, the moft powerful reftraint from Sin P* 4 
 
 *' wou'd be taken away And therefore if any thing 
 
 * more terrible than Eternal Vengeance, cou'd have been P- 1 
 " threatened to the Workers of Iniquity, it had not been 
 " unreafonable, becaufe it wou'd all have been little Enough 
 " to Deterr Men efte&ually from Sin. And whoever 
 tt Confiders how ineffectual the threatning even of Eter- 
 " nal Torments is to the greateft part of Sinners, will 
 " foon be Satisfy'd that a lels Penalty than that of Eter- 
 <c nal Suffering wou'd, to the far greateft part of Man- 
 " kind, have been in all probability of little or no 
 
 " force The Eternal Rewards and Punifhments of p . 2?a 
 
 " another Life, are the great Sanction and Security of 
 " God's Laws. And in the laft place, that if we fuppofe 
 ct that God did intend tha.t His Threatnings fhou'd have 
 if their Effect, to deter Men from the Breach of His 
 4C Laws; it cannot be imagined that in the fame Reve- 
 
 4< lation
 
 24 The fixih DIALOGV E. 
 
 " lation which declares thefe Threatnings, any 
 < tton fhou'd be given of the Abatement^ or Non-execu- 
 " tton of them: For, by this, God wou'd have weakned 
 *' His own Laws, and have taken off the Edge and 
 " Terror of His Threatnings : Becaufe a Threatning 
 " hath loft its Force, if we once come to believe, that 
 <6 it will not be Executed: And cpntequemiy it wou'd 
 " be a very Impious Defign to go about to Teach oc 
 " Perfwade any thing to the Contrary, and a Betraying 
 " Men into that Mifery, which had it been firmly be- 
 " liev'd might have been avoided. 
 
 CHR. This is Aftoniihing beyond any thing ever I 
 heard; for I pray, anfwer me, whether your making Hell 
 Doubtful, be .not, in your own words, A very Impious De- 
 fign, to take away the great San ff ion And Security of God's 
 Laws ? To wake them of tittle or no force to the Greateft 
 part of Mankind ? And if the firm Believing that Miie- 
 ry (v/*. the Eternity of Hell) be the means, as you fay, 
 to avoid it: then-Quaere, whether making Hell Doubtfull, 
 be the means to make us Firmly Believe it ? You confefs 
 that in Scripture ther is -not any Intimation^m any to be 
 expected of the AbAtement, or non-Execution of the Eter- 
 nal Punifhment of Hell. It wou'd be asked here, How 
 then you came by the Difcovery ? You prove very well, 
 that it was Gods defign that men fhou'd think Hell to 
 be Eternal. 
 
 But it feems you are ftill to be excepted, who are a 
 man of Keafon, and will not be over-reach'd. God cou'd 
 not keep it from you ! But fuppofe you have been ad- 
 mitted into God's Cabinet Council, and this great Secret 
 has been Reveal'd to you; how came you to BUbb it, 
 and Fruftrat God's defign ? who intended that men 
 .fhou'd believe Hell was Eternal. 
 
 SOC. I have told you of the Folly of trufting to this- 
 Por may be Hell may be Eternal to fome, tho' not to o- 
 rthers : And it wou'd not be prudence to run the Hazard, 
 
 tho'
 
 The fxth DIALOGUE. 25 
 
 tbo' God fhouM not inflict it. And if Hell fhou'dbe 
 but for fome time, what wife man wou'd venture fuch 
 terrible punifhments, tho' for never fo fbort a time ? 
 
 CHR. But if lefs than Mens believing the Certainty, 
 of Hells Eternal Punifhment will not, as you fay, De- 
 terr Men from Sinning: If that it felf does not do it; 
 how will they be perf waded by telling them, that per- 
 haps Hell may be but for fome (hort time ; or, may be, 
 that God will Remit it altogether : That neither His 
 Juficc, His Wiflom^ nor other Confederations does require 
 it from Him to make good His Threatnings, but it is 
 ftill perfectly in His own Power, and free Liberty to in- 
 flicl: them, or not, at His Pleafure. 
 
 SOC. Will you fay that it is not in Gods Power? 
 
 CHR. I like not the Expreffion, That it is not in Gods 
 Power to do this or that* We fay He cannot Lye, He can- 
 rot Sin, drc. and we know the meaning of thefe, and 
 the like Expreflions ; and perhaps you think to take ad- 
 vantage, and to tye me up with that fort of Exprefii- 
 
 on. 
 
 But if it does appear that God will not do fuch a 
 thing, or that He will certainly do fuch a thing ; I think 
 we need not word it in that Irreverend and Provoking 
 ftyle, that God cannot , that it is not in His Power to 
 do this or that, as if we were putting Him to defy- 
 ance, or had catch'd Him at an Advantage. 
 
 Now why I think it moft certain that Hell is Eter- 
 nal, and that God will inflift it, is becaufe he has (aid 
 fo, and Sworn to it. 
 
 Secondly. Chrift did not Promulgate this only as a 
 Lam-Giver; whereby it might be taken as a bare Threat- 
 ning, and, as fuch, dilpenlable at the pleafure of the 
 Legislator : But Chrift twght it as a Doctor of His Church", 
 and fays, not only, that luch things were threatn'd, and 
 Confequently that it was a Hazard they might be infli- 
 led ; But he fpeaks of them as things that will moft 
 
 M cer-
 
 26 The Sixth D1ALOGVE. 
 
 certainly come to pafs, That the worm rvi/1 not dye i 
 nor the Fire be quenched. And therefor, whatever you 
 (ay of the Legijlator, or His Prerogative, Chrift is here 
 to be confiderM as a true Teacher, or a true Prophet, which 
 wou'd not be fo, if the worm fhou'd dye, or the fire be 
 quenched. 
 
 Cl ^ SOC. 1 will give you a further reafon, which expofes 
 
 ofthep/t- the vulgar notion, men have of the nature of Jaftice^ 
 
 nijbmevt be- an( j w hich leads them wrong in all this matter: People 
 
 o"/d P 7o P the have been taught heretofore, that it belongs to the nature 
 
 offence, of Jaftice to proportion the Punifhment to the Crime : 
 
 whence an exaff proportion is cali'd a juf proportion. 
 
 And from hence they argue. From the Infinite demerit 
 
 of fin, an Eternity of Punifhment. 
 
 CHR. I muft confefs my felf to have been in the num- 
 ber of thefe miftaken People : for I always thought that 
 it did belong to Juftice to Proportion the Punifhment to 
 the Crime. 1 wou'd gladly know your reaion to the 
 contrary. 
 
 SOC. You might have feen that in what I have already 
 told you, viz. That the end of Juftce was only for the 
 fupport of Government. 
 
 For, " what proportion, Crimes and Penalties ought 
 ^ ,1. " to bear to each other, is not fo properly, a Confider- 
 " ation of 'Juftice, as of Wifdem and Prudence in the 
 " Law giver. And the Reafon of this feems very plain, 
 " becaufe the meafure of Penalties is not taken from 
 " any ftricl: proportion betwixt Crimes and Punifh- 
 " ments; But from one Great end and Defign of G^- 
 " vernment, which is, to fecure the Obfervation of whole- 
 " fome and Neceffary Laws, And therefore, If the ap- 
 " pointing and apportioning of Penalties to Crimes be 
 " not fo properly a Confideration of 'Juftice, but rather 
 *' of Prudence in the Law-giver; then whatever the 
 " Difproportion may be between Temporal Sins, and E- 
 ^ternal Sufferings, Jufticg cannot be concern'd in it,
 
 The Sixth DJALOGVE. 27 
 
 ** Afld I defire that this Confederation may be more 
 " efpecially Obferv'd, becaufe it ftrikes at '.'tlie very 
 " Foundation of the Objeftion. 
 
 CHR. Indeed it does at the very Foundation of the 
 Satisfaction of Chrift, and makes it wholly Unnecef- 
 fary. 
 
 SOC. God // not obliged to execute what He bath threattfd 
 any further than the Reafovs an A t Ends of Government do 
 require; And therefor He may remit and abate as much 
 as He pleafeth of the Punishment that He hath threatrfd. p * 13 ' 
 And that Declaration, Mat. 25. 46. that the Wicked {hall 
 go arvay into ever Lifting Punifbment^ does not reftrain God p . ij. 
 trorn (doing what He pleafes. We are all bound to Preach, 
 and you to believe the Terrors of the Lord j not fo, as 
 faucily to determine what God mujl do in this Cafe. For 
 after alt. He may do as 'He will, as I have clearly (hewn. 
 But no doubt they are to be blam'd, who will defper&tly 
 put it to the hazard, whether and hew* far God will execute 
 His Threatnings upon Sinntrs in another World. It is but 
 a Hazard, and that not fo great as fome of you wou'd 
 make us believe; For I do afTure you, that the mifery 
 of Hell is fo terribly fevere, that at frefent, we can hard- P- 22 ' 
 ly tell how to reconcile it with the ^uttice and Goodnefs of 
 God. 
 
 CHR. This is a fair Innuendo, that the Eternity of 
 Hell is againft both the ^uflice and Goodnefs of God. 
 At lea ft againft his Goodnefs. 
 
 SOC. We may reft affufd that if it be any wife iacon- 
 fiftent either with Righteou/nefs or Goodnefs , which He knows 
 much better than we do, to make Sinners miferable for ever, 
 that He will not do it. 
 
 CHR. Since then you cannot atprefent Reconcile it with 
 Gods Goodnefs ; it is plain that you do not at prefent believe 
 the Eternity of Hell, but on the contrary that you reft 
 aflur'd (as your felf words it) that God will not make 
 Sinners miferable for ever. And that for another Reafon, 
 
 M 2 becaufe,
 
 28 The fixth VIALOGVE, 
 
 fcecaufe, (as you fay) to punifh Crimes, or v at leaft tor 
 proportion the Punifhment to the- Crime, is not the 
 Work of J u ft l * ce ') but only a defign of Government, to 
 fecvare the Obfervation of. wholefome LAWS ; And ther being 
 no fuch Obfervation of veholefome Laws fuppos'd in the 
 Damri*d\ confequently ther muft be no Hell, not in re- 
 fpecl: of Juftice. For that you aflure us, is not con- 
 cern'd in the matter; and not in refpect of the Objervt- 
 tion of fuch Larvs y which are not fuppos'd to be obfetv'd 
 there. 
 
 Unlefs you mean ta turn Hell into a Purgatory, where 
 Repentance and Amendment are allow'd, and confequently 
 Pardon- and Releafe, which wou'd be of Service to fome 
 who find it very Inconvenient to Repent here. Efpeci- 
 ally to make Rejlitutton. And this is fairly hinted in 
 out Hi florins Expofition of i Pet. 5. 19. 20. Hift. Vxi- 
 tar. pag 149. 
 
 But you tell us not all your Hypothefis at once. It 
 is new, and wou'd furprize the World too much on the 
 fuddain. But I am afraid, that you will improve this 
 Notion, and end in no Hell at all, which I cannot but 
 think to be your Opinion, from what I have already 
 obfervM of it. 
 
 I defire you will give us a Definition of jta/?/Vf, or 
 if you believe ther is any fuch thing, other than fome 
 Politique of Staff, to fecure Government by terrifying un- 
 thinking People, as the Heathen faid, Primus in orbe 
 Deos fecit timor ! 
 
 And we know the Principles of fome of our own, and 
 late Ages, who took the Name of CbriftUns and Phi*- 
 tvfopherS) and yet made the Authority, even of Scripture, 
 and the very Notion of Right and Wrong to depend 
 upon the Civil Magiftrate. 
 
 And what is Right and Wrong but Jujlice and Injufticet 
 And what is the Civil Migtftrate but the Civil Govern- 
 ment ? And your making that the end and meafure of 

 
 The fixtb DIALOGUE. 
 
 Juftice, has but a little alter'd Mr. Hobbs's Phrafe, his 
 meaning is exadly the fame. 
 
 You make Religion fuch a perfeft Tool to the C/tv7 
 Government, as if it were intended for no other End in 
 This or the World to come, than to keep in Quietnefs 
 Peoples outward PofTefTions or Lives, end to Difpofe the 
 Minds of Men to the Peace of this World. 
 
 u And for Gods fake rvhat~is Religion good fcr y but to (*0 
 " reform the- Manners and Difpoftions of Men, to reftrain 
 " human Nature from Ftljhood axd Treachery, from Sedition gion. 
 a and Rebellion? Better it were ther were r.o REVEAL'D 
 " RELIGION, than to he Atttd by a Religion that 
 " is, continually fupplatftwg Government, and undermining 
 " the Welfare of Mankind. And the Dc&rin of the Law- 
 " fulness of Defofing Kjfigs, and fubverting Government, 
 tf is AS bad, or rvorfe than Infdelity arid r.o Religion. p ' 2I * 
 
 CHR. This may be perhaps like a Polititian, but not 
 fo very like a Chrijltan; becaufe in the Confederation 
 of Religion, you totally forget the other World. And 
 wouM rather have no Religion than to Difturb the Go- 
 vernment with it, that is, rather than be DifturPd by ti- 
 ny Government for it. 
 
 The Religion of this World is Peace and Plenty in- 
 this World. This you make the Standard of your Re- 
 ligion-, and better have no Religion than Difquiet This. 
 Sure you think Jofbua to have been wicked, and his 
 Religion wicked to Difturb the poor Cananites. 
 
 OC. As to that Expedition of Jofhua, I will not med- c? 
 die with it. But (till I be better Informed, which I lf 
 am always ready to be.) I cannot think it Lawfull 
 much as to Preach the Gofpel againft the Command of ut L eaveof 
 the 'Civil-Government, unlefs we had fuch an Extraordi- 
 nary Commiffion as the Apoftles, or as Joftua had, and 
 cou'd Vouch it with Miracles as they did. 
 
 CHR. Not to preach the Gofpel without Leave of the 
 Givil MtgifrAte is making the Authority of Scripture de- 
 pend
 
 3 o The Sixth DIALOGUE. 
 
 pend upon the Civil Magiftrate as much as Mr. 
 bimfelf wou'd Defire, or Eraftus, or the Grand Signior. 
 
 So many Friends have you made to your felf with this 
 Doftrine of Mammon^ who when you fail may receive 
 you into their Habitations ; nor need you fear to Dif- 
 pieafe the Pope by this, for where he is the Supream 
 Civil Magiftrate, which he is own'd to be at Rome (and 
 others Contend for him all over the World, at leaft in what 
 they callCWWdr Countries, even to Depofe Kings, to 
 Create and Beftow Kingdoms at his pleafure) There you 
 will allow that the Gofpel lhall not be preachM without 
 Licence from His Holynefs. Nay that the very Notion of 
 'Juflice and of Right and Wrong muft be taken from him ; 
 which is' making him InfAllible^ and even God, in the 
 moft ftrid and proper fenfe ; And he muft, in your Scheme, 
 not only Judge always Right ; But it is Right and Ju- 
 ilice becAufs he does judge it : And fo. of Truth and Falfe* 
 hood; for what is that but Right and Wrong! 
 
 But, notwithstanding all thefe Efforts, the World is 
 ftill pofleft, and I hope in God ever will be, That ther 
 is fuch a Virtue as Juflice. That ther is Right and Wrong 
 among men, tho' ther were no Political Government in 
 the World ; or tho 1 the Government were fo fecur'd, 
 that it could not be jfhaken with any attempts of ill de- 
 figning men, yet that wicked men ought to be punifh'd, 
 for the Evils they hAve done, without refpeft to what 
 more they might do : And that ther ought to be difference 
 made twixt Greater and Lefjer Crimes, and their Punifh- 
 ments proportionable even in Juftict , without regard to 
 Politicks. r 
 
 SQC. Let us return to the Subjed we were ugon 
 which is the Satisfattion of Chrift. ""** 
 
 C4 } CHR. What has been (aid of the nature of Juflice was 
 
 AH this ApneceflTary to that Subject ; for if Juftice be nothing elfe 
 iy'd to t'e- fotrifttg of Politicks* as you have Difputed. then 
 
 . . A r JL J r , . . ^. r '. 
 
 v it infers no necefluy of SeavfaffM* : ther is no 
 
 fuch
 
 The Sixth DIALOGVE. 31 
 
 fuch thing as Satisfaction, it can be nothing but Prudence 
 and Forefight, for that is the Relative to ^ujlice, it it 
 be taken only for a Cantion in judgment. But on 
 the other hand, if Juftice be a Pofttive Virtue, if it be 
 one of God's Attributes ; and consequently God Himfelf, 
 of His very Nature and Eflence, fo that God is Jujiice, 
 in the Abftraft, then it mutt require Full and Adequat- 
 Satisfaction, for that as is faid, is the Nature of Jujtici, 
 and confequently of God, who is not God becaufe He 
 is Governor of the World (which is all the Notion 
 fome men have of Himj But he is Chief Governor be- 
 caufe He is God-, It is a Confequence of His Na- 
 ture-, and therefor we muft compute of His Go- 
 vernment from His Nature ; not of His Nature from 
 His Government-, and from the neceffity of His Na- 
 ture, as He has Reveal'd it to us, we infer the 
 neceffity of a Satisfaction to His Juftice, which is His 
 Nature : And confequently His Government muft of ne- 
 ceffity proceed purfuant to His Nature ; that is, His Ja~ 
 Jtice, and we muft not meafure it by that mean and 
 worldly Notion of Government, under poor Politicks and 
 Tricks of State, to keep up their Government and fecure 
 the Execution t>f their Laws. If we be Good, what do 
 we add to God? And if we be Wicked what do we 
 hurt Him ? No. He punifhes Wickednefs out of His 
 Inherent ^aftice ; and neither to Fear, nor Flatter Sinners. 
 Therefor He punifhes, when the time of Repentance is 
 over, that is, in Heff. 
 
 And, from the fame neceffity, all Sinners muft go 
 thither, if full Satisfaction be not made to His Juftice. 
 Juftice not being fatisfy'd, does always fuppofe that Ju- 
 jiice is not done, and confequently, that ther is Injuftice, 
 for, coming (bort of Juftice, is Contrarj to Juftice. 
 
 From thefe Reafons, we gladly and without Contra- 
 diction receive the moft Rational and (Gracious Difpenfa- 
 tion of the Gofpel , wherein we find a Full and Adequat 
 
 Satis-
 
 3 2 The fixth DIALOGUE. 
 
 Satisfaction (for other than a Full and Mequat Satis- 
 faction, is no Satisfaction) to fuftise for our Sins ; with- 
 out which ther cou'd never have been any Remiflion, 
 by the fame neceflity that Juflice muft be ^uftice, and 
 that God is Justice. And this is the true account we give, 
 and proper end of Chrift's coming into the World. 
 (^ SOC. I have heard fome of our Authors fay, That 
 
 of ckrift the End of Chrifts coming, was to fliew *as a new Con- 
 covenL d * ti& "> or Covenant for Remiffion of Sin, that is, Repe*. 
 .tance, which was more effectual than the Legal. Sacri- 
 fices. 
 
 CHR. He might have taught us this without Dy/>, 
 
 and being Crucify d. Secondly. Repentance was no AW 
 
 Condition or Covenant. It was the Import of all the 
 
 if of. Legal Sacrifices, and, as fuch, fully explain'd by the Pro- 
 
 6 ' 6 ' phets. / will have Mercy And not Sacrifice. Bring no more 
 
 jf. . ^,<vAin ObfatJjns wafly ye, make ye cleAn^ put AW Ay the 
 
 Evil of your Doings. The Sacrifices ef God are A .broken. 
 
 ?t ?yis?i*7 Spirit,, at .what time foever A Siswer repents , he ftull 
 
 $od ^. JAve %is Soul. Rent your Heart And, not pur Garments. 
 
 And many more places. This is the ftrain of all the 
 
 Prophets. 
 
 And Chrift came not to De/lr<y 9 or Alter any thing 
 of the Law, but to Fulfill it. Therefor He taught no 
 New 1 DocVin, but fulfiU'd His Type s t which were in the 
 Ott Law, and brought them to their Fulnefs and Com- 
 pletion. 
 
 (6t) The LAW and the Gofpel are call'd Two Covenants or 
 
 The LAW Teftaments ; becaufe the one was before the other, on^ 
 an , d ? e ?*i Weaker, or more Imperfett than the other. 
 
 zl the tame '. j t. L oT j rr- r . 
 
 But in regard that one was the Shadow or Type of the 
 other, and was Fulfilled and Perfected in the other, they 
 were both but One and the Same Covenant. It was One 
 and the fame Chrift who was Figured in the Law, and 
 Plainly Exhibited in the GofyeL 
 
 He
 
 The fixtb DIALOGV E. 33 
 
 He was meant, when the Pr/>/;was Commanded to 
 
 the SinQjftr;7tg t that he might bear the . Iniquity of /^ 
 the Congregation to wake Ationcmettt for them before the c. io. 1*7. 
 Lord. 
 
 This Sin Offering was fo Holy, or Devoted, to bear God's Lev. 
 Indignation for 6V* \ That none muft Touch it but who 6 ' *=? 
 was //0/y, the Garment muft be W^/frf, on which any of cbJijt ti- 
 lts Blood had been Sprinkled', and the Etrthen Veffel kin " J " 
 Wherein it was &?<&&, muft be Jfoub//; and the Brafin^^rL 
 Pot Scou^d and Rinfed. inthe.JS.0f 
 
 Yet this Devoted and Cr/W Tfcwg, Loaded with the-f er/> * 
 &/w of the tr0/p People, the Prieft muft <*, and turn it 
 into his own Flefh and Blood, that he might bear their 
 Iniquity y as it were Incorporated in his own Body : 
 
 And thus it was that ChriH was made a Curfe and 
 a Sin for us, and Bore our Iniquities-, they were 7#fl?r- 
 porated in Him, made ///'/ 0n?/;, and He bore them in 
 His own Body on the Crofs ; and Suffered for them, as if 
 they had been , H/V ^. 
 
 He made Himfelf liable to our Debt, by becoming (8.j 
 our Surety for the Debt, and fo made it His own. And s c f ^ * r 
 then He was Bouvd to Satisfy the whole Debt, becaufe it 
 was His own. 
 
 And no Man calls it unjuft to become a Surety for 
 a Friend, or for the Surety to pay the Debt, efpecially 
 when the Principal is not able. 
 
 SOC. That is true, as to Perfonal Actions, Delft, or 
 the Like. But can we find any fuch thjng usM among 
 Men, as Sureties for Life ? 
 
 CHR. Yes. It is common to be bound Life for Life. Our 
 You have feveral Inftances of it in Scripture, i /C- *o. 
 59. 40. 42. 2 /C io. 24. And Ho&ages are us'd in all 
 Nations, and ever have been, nor can War and Publick 
 Faith be manag'd without it. 
 
 SOC. Can you find any place in Scripture, where Chrifl 
 is calPd by the name of a Surety* 
 
 N CHR.
 
 54 fk Sixth DIALOG V E. 
 
 CHR. The name fignifies nothing ; You have feen 
 thing, under other names of as much import as that, viz. 
 Redemption^ Ranfom, Propitiation, Attonement and Sacrifice* 
 But if the very word will perfwade you more, you have 
 it too, Heb. 7. 22. Jefus was made a. Surety. * 
 
 SOC. Chrift there is not call'd our Surety, but the Surety 
 of a better Teftament. 
 
 Htb. 7. 11. CHR. That is, of the New Teftament, or Covenant. 
 Explain d, ^^ are not ^ a p^ j n ^^ Covenant ? Therefor he 
 
 is our Surety : As he that is bound in a Bond with me, 
 is my Surety ; So that being Surety of a Covenant, is be- 
 ing Surety for the Perfon on whofe behalf the Covenant 
 is made. 
 
 What if we perform our part of the Covenant? 
 
 SOC. No Queftion he that is Surety of the Covenant, 
 is Surety to Tou for the Performance of what is due to 
 T0//, by the Covenant from the other Party. 
 
 CHR. And is it not Reciprocal? That if I break my 
 part of the Covenant of Grace, then the Surety of the 
 Covenant is bound to God for Afe, That I fhall Pay ac- 
 cording to the Covenant ? 
 
 SOC. This is ftill only upon the account of the Co- 
 venant. 
 
 CHR. Let it be upon what account it will, Chrift is 
 our Surety. But that of the Covenant we have Difcourft 
 already, and upon what account it is; I now only hew 
 you, That Heb. 7. 22. Ckrift is call'd our Surety, by be- 
 ing calPd Surety* of the Covenant made 'twixt God and 
 Vs of which David fpake, when he Pray'd to God^ 
 Be Surety for thy Servant. Pfal. 119. 122. and Job was 
 not ignorant of this Notion, when he faid to God. Put 
 me in a Surety 'with Thee. Job- 17 3. So that ther are no 
 Names nor Expreffions wanting, whereby to fignify the 
 
 Satisfaction of Chrift ; Even the very word Satisfa&fori 
 
 -- , ; -^n ' yf : J 
 
 5 5. n
 
 II. 
 
 The Sixth DIALOGUE. 35 
 
 SOC. I have heard from our Authors, an Exposition (9-) 
 of that Text, Ifii. 53. n.in another Senfe than you have SerJreS 
 taken it. He (ball Jee of the Travel of His Soul, and be on of 7/^.5 3. 
 Satisfied. That is, G&r/J? after he is gon to Heaven, 
 fhall reflect upon His paft Sufferings, and fhall be Sa- 
 tisfied? That is, Pleased with it. 
 
 CHR. This is like one of the formention'd Interpre- 
 tations : The buflnefs is, This Text muft be got over, 
 and this is one way ! But this is a long Paraphrafe in- 
 ftead of an Interpretation. Is ther any thing in the Con- 
 text of Chrift^s going to Heaven ? And that this was to 
 be underftood not till His Afcenpon. 
 
 SOC. No. But in our Senfe, we cannot find another 
 time when Cbrifl fhould look with pleafure upon his 
 own Sufferings. 
 
 CHR. That whole Chapter is treating of ChrifPs Suf- 
 ferings, and Defcribing His Paffion . And the very Verft 
 next before that Text, tells us how it pleas'd the Lord 
 to bruife Him, and put Him to Grief; and fo goes on, 
 recounting the Sufferings which the Lord laid upon 
 Him, qf which thefe words are a part, He fhall fee of 
 the travel of His Scul and be (atisfed. 
 
 Now if this were no Inconvenience to your Opini- 
 on, wou'd it not be Eafier to mean thofe words in this 
 Senfe, That God who put Chrifl to Grief, (hou'd fee of 
 the travel of Cbrifl^ Soul and be fatisfied with it 
 Rather than to make fo great and unfeen a Tranfhion 
 from the Ptffion of Chrift, to Him in Glory Looking 
 back upon Him, meaning Hfmfelf. He faid to Him, or 
 He Lookt upon Him, being Phrafes never us'd in Eng- 
 lifh for a Man's faying, or Looking to Himfelf. 
 
 SOC. I confefs if it were not for the Difficulty ap- 
 pears in that Text to our Opinion, your Interpretation 
 is what offers at firft view from thefe words, and feems 
 mod natural and agreeable to the Context, and fcope of 
 that Chapter. 
 
 N 2 Bw
 
 3 .6. The fixth DIALO GV E. 
 
 But all this is a digreffion from our Author, and the 
 P . 164. Subjeft we are at prefent upon. If you pleafe let us 
 return. He fays, the diftinftion of two NAtures in 
 Chrift (a Divine and a Hum An) is clearly overthrown 
 by the 8, 9, 10 and nth Arguments mentioned in the 
 firft Letter 
 
 CHR. And I refer to the anfwers given to them. 
 (is.; OC. Relays further, That if a thing, otherwife true 
 ? U n p a ga; n ft of Chrift, may be deny'd of Him, becaufe it is only in 
 the Diviniy one of tliefe (pretended) Natures, and not in the other. 
 cbrijt. if our Saviour, faith he, can dp nothing of Himfelf, only 
 becaufe He cart to Nothing of Himfelf according to His 
 Human Nature, and can do All things of Himfelf accor- 
 ding to his (pretended) Divine Nature, than it is Law- 
 full and allowable to fay, Chrift is no Man, was never. 
 Born of the Virgin ; never was Crucify*}, Dead, or Buri- 
 ed, &c; And on the other hand, no fault can be found 
 j$ with a SocinUn, when he fliall fay Chrift is not true 
 God, was not Generated of the Effence of His Father, 
 was not from Eternity, for all this may be faid of Him, 
 according to his Human Nature, for according to that, 
 he is not trueGod, was not Generated of the Father's EfTence, 
 was not from Eternity, drc. 
 
 This is his argument and he thinks it Invinci- 
 ble. 
 
 CHR- And to furprize him the more, I will anfwer 
 it by granting it all: and (hew his Spphiftry by a Plain 
 and Familiar Example. 
 
 Suppofe any QiouM queftion my Legitimacy, and fay 
 I was not fuch a Man's Son ? And when he came to 
 the Proof ibouM fay, that my Soul was not begotten 
 by my Father ; and he only fpoke in relation to that, 
 and not of my Body, which he allow'd to be Legitimat- 
 ly begotten by my Father? Wou'd this fave him from 
 being a pitifull Sopbifler, and paying me juft Damages ? 
 And yet I do grant all that he faid to be true : But his 
 
 Con-
 
 Thefixth DIALOGUE. 37 
 
 Condemnation lies in fpeaking with Defign ro be mifuir* 
 derftood. 
 
 Thus it is with the Socinians. If they will explain 
 themfelves, and tell what they mean, -viz. That Chriiir 
 is not God, nor Eternal according to His Human Na- 
 ture. That He did not Suffer, or Die according to His 
 Divine Nature. No good Chriftian will be Offended, 
 becaufe he alfo fays the fame. 
 
 But when we know the Socminn Principle, and hear 
 them deny Chrift to be God, we have reafon to take it 
 in the fame Senfe they meant it ; and to Judge them ac- 
 cordingly. And to think this Shift as Poor and Con- 
 temptible, as if a Man (hou'd deny I Eat, Slept, or 
 Talked, and fay, that he meant only that my Svul did not. 
 Eat, &c. 
 
 SOC. Now we have done with our Author;, but a 
 friend of the Publishers, of Excellent Learning- and p.i6*. 
 Worth, adds a Letter of his own, to prove three things. 
 i. That the Doctrin of the Trinitarians is no Neceffary, Arguments 
 or Fundamental Dodtrine of Chriftianity* 2. That the So- of the sum* 
 cinians are not to be put under any Penalties ofc theism. "" 
 J. That the Trinitarians ought to own the Vnitarians as 
 Chriftian Brethren* 
 
 CHR. Give his Reafons as>to the firft point, That the d.) 
 Doftrinof the Trinity is not Fundamental. nl? at the 
 
 SOC. The firft Reafon is, That it is Difficult to be^ z'L/is 
 Vnderftood. not Fund*-- 
 
 CHR. So is the Nature of God. The mpft Learned memh 
 have very obfcure and imperfed Notions of it, and fome 
 common People have even Blafphemous and Contradi&- 
 ory Apprehenfions of God. Yet you wou'd not exclude 
 the Belief of a God from being a Fundamental. Article. 
 God Reveals Himfelf as He thinks fit, and we are to 
 Learn all that we can. And God will require no more 
 than He has given. The dngtls know Him not perfect- 
 ly^
 
 The Sixth DIALOGUE. 
 
 ly* But is it not therefor Fundamental, whether Chrifl be 
 God, whether what we Worfbip be God, or no God. 
 
 SOC. His fecond Reafon is, That to make the Do- 
 
 p- 169. ftrin of the Trinity fundamental, is to joyn hands with 
 
 the Pafifts, in Contradi&ion to the Protejiant Doftrine; 
 
 owning, with them, that the Scriptures are Obfcure and 
 
 Inefficient, even in Fundamentals. 
 
 CHR* What he dare not Prove, he (lily Infwuats, vis* 
 That the Proteflants think the Trinity is not fufficient- 
 ly Rbveal'd in Scripture. The Contrary to which we 
 affert, and think it has been fhewn. 
 
 SOC. He fays, The Papifts have in reality, the advan- 
 p- T 7- ,tage of the Proteflants in that matter. 
 
 CtiR. That is, he wou'd have it fo, becaufe it makes 
 for the Socinian Principle. But we muft maintain the 
 Truth, tho' Papifls and Socii*ns are join'd againft us; 
 and that Lord too of whom he tells the fine Story. 
 
 SOC. His third Reafon is, That the firlt Ages of the 
 
 .., ^Church had none but the -Apoftles Creed-, and that the 
 
 /Jj^gfty Creed does fully agree with the SociniAn, but by 
 
 p. 171. jio means with the Trimtaria* DoSrin of Fundamental 
 
 CHR. We have feen already that the Apofiks Creed 
 does exprefs the Trinity^ and cannqt be reconcil'd to 
 Senfe without it: And the after Creeds were only farther 
 Jlluftrations of it. 
 
 SOC. His fourth Reafon is, That the Sixth Article of 
 the Church of England, fays, that, nothing is to be re- 
 ^yiirM of ^ny Mafl as an Article of Faith, but what is 
 .in the Sfripture, or may be prov'd thereby. 
 
 CHR. What does this Prove againft the Trinity. 
 .AySOC. Nothing, unlefs you will Confefs, that it can- 
 sot be prov'd from Scripture. 
 
 CHR. This was his Fetch in bfefefowl Reafon, and 
 it was 'dull to bring it in again. 
 
 SOC.
 
 Ue Sixth DIALOG E. ajr 
 
 ...~. ": , . . : / . *" 
 
 SOC. Will you hear his Reafons to the fecond Point 
 That the Socinhns, or "Unitarians, ought not to 
 be put under any Penalties by the Law. P. 172. 
 
 CHR. I think none have a Right to claim a To/era- fa.) 
 tion, or Immunity to their Religion, whofe Principle it WjJ^J, t 
 not to allow the fame to other Religions \ and who do ought not to 
 not praftife it, when they themfelves have the Power. be 
 And whether the Socinims or Unitarians be of this Num- 
 ber, the Bitter Perfecution of the Afian againft the Or- 
 thodox will fufficiently witnefs. 
 
 Your Friend Grotius de Jure Belli. Lib. 2. c, 20. S. 
 ult. whom you Quoted on your fide, Obferves out of 
 Jthavajtas [Ep. ad. Solitar. Vit agentes, ep. Tom. i, 
 Vide Hilarium Orat. ad Coflantium'\ That the Aritns 
 were the firft of any who call'd themfelves Chrijtians r 
 that Perfecuted others for Religion In Art Anton H<erepn 
 acriter invehitur ATHANASIUS, Quod print* in Coatradi' 
 centes a fa effet 'Judicum fotejlate, et quas non potuit verbis 
 inducer'e, eos vi, plagis 9 verberibufyue ad fe pertrakere an- 
 niieretur, whom they cou'd not perfwade by fair 
 means they endeavoured to bring over to their fide by 
 Force and Perfecution. Of this you will be Satisfied 
 abundantly not only in the Reigns of Conflantius and 
 V*lens, but of the Gothick Kings in 'Sp*rn- 9 and the Van- 
 dal Kings in Africa, whofe Perfecutions are writ by 
 Vittor Vitenfis. 
 
 If we fhou'd, tell them that they fhouM have the 
 fame Quarter they gave to Atbanafius, what Objeftion 
 cou'd they make againft the Juftice of the Sentence. 
 And what Security cou'd they give, or Reafon to make 
 any one Believe, that if they had a Sociniah Prince (whick 
 God avert) they wou'd not Perfecute as Bloodily as 
 they did Formerly ? Or that Socinian Bi/bops in this Age 
 would be more Chrittian and Merciful then thofe in the 
 Ages paft, and wou'd not make ufe of the Temporal 
 Power, as they did before, to Deprive the Orthodox Rifhops 
 
 and
 
 4 o The fixtb D I A L G V E. 
 
 and Seize upon their Sees for themfelves ; And Profecute 
 thofe for Schifmaticks, who refus'd to Join with them in 
 Communion ; And as Obnoxious to the Temperal Law, 
 who fhou'd Dare to. own their Deprived Orthodox Fa- 
 thers. When they can fecure us that, in this- cafe, the 
 Orthodox ought not to be put under any Penalties by 
 the Law ; then, and not tiO then, it will be time for 
 them to plead that the Socinians ought not to be under 
 any Penalties by the LAW. of which they are under 
 no apprehenfions at prefent, nor .can they ask more 
 Liberty than they have, unlefs to be Eftablffid by Aft 
 of Parliament as the National Religion ^ of which I will 
 not fay, whether they have hopes or not ; or whether 
 now, or in a little longer time, when their Principles 
 (hall be more generally fpread, and as publickly own'd 
 in the Country, as they are in and near the City. For 
 what other End flbould they Defire a Repeal of the 
 Penal Laws, I .cannot fee at prefent, for they are in 
 Face as much Sujpended towards the Socinians, as towads 
 other Diff enters. The Socinians have now for a* Long 
 time had an Open Meeting-Houfe in Cutlers-Hall in Lon- 
 don* Their Preacher one Emlin, formerly a Differing 
 Preacher hi Dublin, but forc'd to Fly out of Ireland, 
 for his Open and Notorious Soctnianifm. 1 have feen a 
 very Long Catalogue of the many Volumes of Socinian 
 Tra&s Printed fince this Brief Hiftory we are now up- 
 on. And they have been D^fpers'd with Great Dili- 
 gence afl over London, without Cafttion or Secrefie, and 
 are ftill to be Bought Openly in the Book-fetters Shops. 
 Yet no Inquiry or Profecution \ I have heard Socitfiwiph 
 by Name Openly Defended in Publick Ceffec-Hou/es, 
 and the Perfons own themfelves to be Socmians, and 
 no Notice taken/ What Liberty wou'd they have? Or 
 what Perfection do they Fear? They all pafs under 
 the Name of good Proteftants ! For they are not Pa- 
 
 soc.
 
 The Sixth DIALOGVE. 41 
 
 SOC. This brings me to the Third Point, which is, M 
 That the Trinitarians ought to own the Vnitarians as ou j h h t a t c 00 *n 
 Chritfian Brethren. them as our 
 
 CHR. You Charge us with Polytbeifm and Idolatry gjjj'* Bre 
 and tbat Chritt whom we Worfhip as God, you fay 
 is but a Creature what Greater Difference can ther be 
 in Religion ? As foon may Contradictions Reconcile, and 
 God, and No God, mean the fame thing, as we be 
 Christian Brethren. 
 
 The Jews and Heathens confefs Chrifl to be a Man, 
 and a Good Man ; The Turks own Him for a True Pro- 
 phet, and the Mefliah fent from God ; Thefe too muft be 
 Chrittiw Brethren upon the fame Score. 
 
 Befides you Rejeft the only way we know to Hea- 
 ven, which is, by the Satisfadion of Chrifl. How then 
 can we be Cbrijtu* Brethren, we go not fo much as the 
 fame Rode together? 
 
 SOC. Muft every Body be Damn'd that does not Nonefav'd 
 believe the Satisfaction of Chritf ? but by the 
 
 CHR.l will not fay that, But I do firmly believe, that no gSff *"* 
 Man can be fav'd but by the Satisfa&ion of Chri&. Infants, 
 Fools ; Mad-Men, and thofe who never heard of it, are ex- 
 cus'd from Believing it, but yet are fav'd by the Vertue of it. 
 
 SOC. Why then does Athanafius fay, That except we 
 believe we Ihall be Darnjfd, and without doubt, Perifh 
 verlaftingly ? are not thefe words too Pofitive. 
 
 CHR. They are no more than our Saviour faid, Go 
 Preach the Go/pel to every Creature* He that be lieveth /batt M a rk *$ 
 be jav*d, but he that believeth not (hall be Damn'd, 
 
 SOC. But why does Athanafius put in fuch pofiiive 
 words, as to fay without Doubt they fhall Perifb, &c. As ob. of 4. 
 if he were fo fure of it? ttmtfius fay. 
 
 CHR: Is not what Ckrit fays true without Doubt? 
 
 SOC. Yes fure. 
 
 CHR. Then without Doubt they who believe not ihall 
 be Damri'd 
 
 SOC. This is a Hard faying. O CHR.
 
 The fixth DIALOGV E. 
 CPJR. But lay it not upon Athanafas, who but re- 
 peated it after our BlefTed Saviour^ and fpoke the Senfe 
 of all the Reft of the Fathers of the Church. And, in 
 the True Senfe I think it goes no farther than this ^ 
 That thofe who Refufe or Negleft the Preaching of 
 the Gofpel,that is, Reafonable Convition of thefe Re- 
 veal'd Truths (hall be Condemn'd. But I do not think 
 at all, That thofe are Included whofe unbelief proceeds 
 from an Impoflibiliiy of Conviction; either thro' want 
 of Capacity, or want of Means. And my Reafon is t 
 Chrift bids them go and Preach, and than who do not 
 believe- So that when there is no Preaching, or Suf- 
 ficient Publication of the Gofpel, there this Sentence does 
 not take Place, for it is only pronounc'd againft thofe 
 Who Refufe to Believe upon the Preaching of the GofpeL 
 Secondly No Man is Required to Believe farther than 
 his Capacity can reach; for that is not in his Power, 
 and h Impoffible, and a Contradiction in Nature. And 
 God has faid, That He will Require no more than He 
 has given ; But then men may improve their parts, and 
 ftrength will encreafe by Labor, and decay by Idlenefs, 
 And to him that hath more fhall be given; and he 
 will be Condemn'd who hides his Talents. 
 
 Thefe are ftrong Inticements to the utmoft Diligence, 
 and Sincerity, but by no means to Defpair. 
 
 And it is in this fenfe, That I recommend to you the 
 Doftrin of the Satisfaction of Cbri&. For if Faith in Him, as 
 fucb, as our Surety and Satisfaction to Gods Juftice and 
 Wrath againft Sin, if this be the faving Faith, as we fay it 
 is, Then the Turks and Barbarians will enter into Heaven 
 before you, and have a better Title to the Name of Ckriftians. 
 The Alcoran allows of Chrif as anlnterceflbr with the 
 Divine Majefty, as you have heard. And they fpeak 
 as Great and Honourable things of Chrift, as any Sod" 
 rizn can do ; and a great deal more in fome refpefts, 
 as I have (hewn alnaoft to the height of the Aria.xs 
 thenvfelves. The
 
 The fixth DIALOGUE. 43 
 
 The ncarnefs of their Faith may be the Reafon P- 3- 
 why the Hift. Unitarians tells us, That the Socinians irt 
 the Turkifb and other Mahometan and Pagan Dominions 9 ? ** 
 are very numerous, but that their Do&rin is not profeft in 
 Chriftendom, except in a few very obfcure and little Places. 
 
 But pray let me ask you in good Earneit, for I do not . Thf L ^. CI " 
 
 jn. o oi;^/ . /. * mans Fatfh. 
 
 well underftand, how you expect to be Sav'd byChrtft? 
 
 SOC.By that New Covenant He has made with God for us. 
 
 CHR. What is the Condition of that Covenant* 
 
 SOC. Our True Obedience, and upon Failure, Sincere 
 Repentance and Amendment. 
 
 CHR. Is any of our Repentance and Amendment as 
 True and Sincere as it ought to be ? 
 
 SOC. No. We muft not prefume to that, for the Scrip- 
 ture fays, that all our Righteoufnefs is as fithy Raggs. If. 64. 6. 
 
 CHR. Was the Condition of the Covenant, That God 
 fhou'd accept of thefe///^ Raggs. 
 
 SOC. Thro' the Interceffion of Chrifl. 
 
 CHR. God hates Sin, with an Irreconcilable Hatred. 
 And He is of purer Eyes than to behold Iniquity. 
 Wou'd Chrift intercede with Him, to Aft contrary to 
 His Nature, and to Love what He Hates ? Does not 
 Chri/l Himfelf Hate Sin ? Does He defire it to be accepted I 
 
 SOC. That will not bear. But do not you fay the fame ? Compar'd 
 
 CHR. Far from it, we fay, That God accepts only^. th< 
 the Satisfaction of hritt f as being Full and Adequat to 
 His whole jfuftice. And the Condition and Privilege of 
 Chrift's Covenant is, by our being Incorporated into Him, 
 to make His Righteoufnefs ours, That as He was made 
 Sin for us who knew no Stn> fo we (who have of our 
 felves no Righteoufnefs) might be made the Right eoafnef s 2 QQ It ^^ lt 
 of God in Him* And being thus Cloathed in the G/ir- 
 mt*t* t)f our Elder Brother ; we are accepted in Him on- 
 ly. And thofe Only are accepted, who in profound Hu- 
 mility and Senfe of their own Unworthinefs rely wholly 
 on the Righteoufnefs ofQhrtft. 
 
 O 2 SOC.
 
 44 Me Sixth DIALOGUE. 
 
 we muft sOC. If we lean fo wholly to the Merit of Chrift's 
 W col wo a rks Righteoufnefs, then we need not Work our felves. So 
 
 in and witbus. fay the Solipditins. 
 
 CHR. That has been fufficiently anfwered already, 
 And it is Refolv'd Phi/. 2. 12. 15. Work out your own 
 
 8 nh At ion becAufe it is God who rvorketh in you both to 
 
 Will and to do of His Good Pleafure. 
 
 God gives us Power to Work, that we might Work. 
 We muft work becaufe God commands it, and we 
 muft do all we can, becaufe he gives us Ability, and it 
 is, that we might Vfe that Ability : But when we have 
 done all we can, we are Unprofitable Servants ; we muft 
 truft nothing to any thing we do; it is all Vnclean, and 
 cannot appear before God. Nor can ever, for its own 
 fake, be accepted by Him ; It muft be Hid and Covered, 
 and CloAttfd with the Righteoufnefs of Chrift ; that no- 
 thing of it felf may appear at all in the prefence of God, 
 (as has been faid) who fees folly in His Angels, and the 
 Job. 4. 19- Heavens are not Clean in His fight; how much lefs 
 them that Dwelt in Hwfes of CUy, whofe Foundation 
 is in the Dttfl^ who are Crujfcd before the Mothl 
 14- 4- And who can bring a Clean thing out of an V fide an ? 
 Yet muft You that truft in your own Works, appear to me as 
 be unclothed a man doMd in filthy Rtggs, (for fuch is all our Righ- 
 *Jt chtbrt' ttou f**(*} anc * brought into Court, rubbing and Jcrubbing 
 in the tyke- and patching thefe nafy Clouts, ftriving to make Himfelf 
 f C/** and Fine and well Dreft as the Courtier he fees there. ' 
 Who may commend his Skill and Induftry in Darn- 
 ing or Cob ling, but muft withall Pity his Ignorance, if he 
 thinks ever to make his Drefs Fafhionable by fuch means. 
 But if he (hou'd prefume to make one, in that Gurb, at 
 a Solemn Feafl, made upon the moft Glorious occaCon, The 
 Marriage of the Kjngs Son, he muft not only be thought 
 M*d, but expeft to be Severely Punifbt, and thrown 
 out of Court with Difgraee, for fuch Impudence. 
 *. If none Cloath'd in Sackcloth (the weed of Mourners) 
 
 muft
 
 The Sixth DIALOGS. 45 
 
 muft enter into the Kjngs Palace, much lefs fhall one Be- 
 
 fmered, and in Filth come into His Prtfence i Sit down to Re 
 
 Table with Him, Nay be admitted to His Bed, made0#2i. 
 
 with Him and Marry* d to Him, and fit with Him in His 
 
 Throw. For fuch High prerogative has Chnft obtained 
 
 for all true Believers : Who whtn they come to Heaven-, 
 
 are not, for Chrift^s fake, admitted in their Filthy Raggs, 
 
 nor is His Covenant with His Father to Patch and Scour? 
 
 their Raggs, No, they can never be made fit for that 
 
 place. But as the Serpent Leavs all his Sting behind Him, 
 
 they are Strip and Divefted of all their Earth Stair? A fm- 
 
 ful Weeds. And as the Cuftom is in fome Courts, they 
 
 are New Cloath'd in the Fafhon of that Court to which 
 
 they come, as God faid to "jofhua (Zech. j. 4.) Behold, 
 
 1 have caufed thine Iniquity to pajs from thee, and I will 
 
 Cloath thee rvith Change of Raiment. New Botching the Old 
 
 will never do ; we muft hare all New, a New Wedding- Matt. 22. 
 
 Garment put upon us, we muft throw of the Old Ate, not |7 * Col 3-^ 
 
 feek Excufes for him, or to Reconcile him to God, who 
 
 Hates him, and all Wickednefs, by the fame NecefFity that He- 
 
 Loves Himfelf. Nor can Chrift plead for fuch : That wou'd 
 
 make Him Wicked teo ; He hates Sin as much as God does. 
 
 Give me Leave to fuppofe, that you had now all your An A^A 
 Death-bed Thoughts about you; place your felf, in your 10 thejww/- 
 own Imagination, in the utmoft Scene of your Life, and*" 
 juft ready to breath out your laft ; and to be carry'd to 
 hear the Irrevocable Sentence pafs upon you. Wou'd you 
 delight to bring the Sincerity of your own Performance 
 before the moft Extream Scrutiny of In f nit ^uflice^ fo as 
 toftand or fall by it to all Eternity^. Or wou'd you think 
 it greater Comfort^ if you cou'd believe that Chrift wou'd 
 appear, not to plead for God's Acceptance of your Pro- 
 vocations , for fuch have been all your Performances : But 
 that having made you a Member of His own Body, of Hts E he 
 Fie ft, and of His Bones, and conlequently given you a 
 Title and a Right to all that was Hisj as every Member, 
 
 even
 
 The jixtb DIALOGUE. 
 
 even that which is Grafted, partakes of the- Nature and 
 Privileges of the Body : Artd that is truly a Member > which 
 is Enlivened and Actuated by the fame Spirit, and receives 
 Nourifhment from the fame Head; Whence the Apoftle 
 s. 11. inferrs the neceflfuy of our Refarrectiow, becaufe that Spi- 
 rit which rais'd up Chrift from the Deac^ muft raife us 
 up, being Members of His Body, and abed by His Spirit. 
 1 fay if you cou'd Believe, That the Merit of Chnft^s 
 Righteoufnefs were thus made Yours, fo that you might 
 Plead it as ;0//r own, as a full Satisfaction to the utmoft 
 Demand of J^/lice, paid by your Surety, fuch a 6V/re(y as 
 has made your Debt Aw 0avr, by making you one with Him- 
 felf. If you cou'd Believe this, wou'd it not give you more 
 Comfort and Delight, more Light and Affurance to your 
 Mind, than any Excuje you cou'd Fancy to be made for all 
 your Failings, is as to make God in Love with them, and 
 .Accept them upon w hatever Arbitrary and Fancy M Cove- 
 nttnt you may fuppofe 't^ixt him and Chrift y to Accept them, 
 which is contrary to ttyi Nature of them Both? And that 
 upon the only Reafop of an Innocent Perjons being Murther^d 
 by thofe Sinners, ^ithout any Need or Nece/Jity for it at all, 
 upon Account of Satisfying the Jujlice of God for our Sins, 
 for fo you Socinians fay. But yet give no other Reafon at 
 all for the Derth of Chrift. But fuppofe a Covenant for it, 
 without any Why or Wherefore, when all might have been 
 done as well without it ; which is oppofit to all Senfe and 
 R**fon\ while you reject as Irrational the Satisfaction of 
 Ckrift r which is ftriftly Cpnfequential, and necefTary to the 
 Nature ofjuftice, which is God: And the Covenant of Re* 
 million, grounded upon inflows neceflarily from it, carries its 
 own Light and Affurance with it, and leaves no Doubt or 
 Saffence in that Heart which can Believe it; He that thus 
 follows Chrift, walketh not in X*rte/},but I will be judg'd 
 by your feif whether your way be not Dark and Slippery ? 
 Whether you can Lean your Souls abfolutely, and without 
 Hefitation upon that Foundation of your being accepted 
 
 without
 
 . The fixth DIALOG V E. 47 
 
 without any Satis/Men made for your Sins, trufting cniy 
 to the Sincerity and Perfeftion of your own. Performance of 
 thofe Condition* which C/w// hath enjoy n r d, as the Ttrnts 
 of that Arbitrary Covenant you fuppofe He made wkfi GW, 
 without any Covenant of Satisfaction ? Which of thefe O- 
 <vett*tJt$ wouM you Define to plead before your JWj?, be- 
 fore the Face of the utmoft "Juftice, unerring ErTential "Ju- 
 stice in the Abftracl, which cannot Forgive, or 'Remit- the 
 leaft farthing, more than it can ceafe to be what it is, that 
 is Jaftice? Wou'd you appear there Pleading your own;! 
 Rrghteoufnefs, or Sincerity of your Repentance, as an Atone- 
 ment for your Sins ? That wou'd be Cleaning of your 
 Filth with a Filthy-Cloath. Wou'd you not rather (to end 
 in the words of Scripture} have the fUh) R^gg* tfyour own 
 Righteoufnefs taken quite away, and to be Cloattfd in the 
 Wedding Garment of the Rigbteoufnefs of Cbrijl ? 
 
 SOC. Ther is no difpute but the latter wou'd be chofen, 
 If it were in our Choife, that is, if it were in owr Power to 
 Believe ir. It has Comjorts in it beyond all Imagination. 
 
 CHR. We are told by St. Paul, Eph. 21. 8. That this The c 
 Faith is the Gift of God. All Arguments will prove inef-^ ^ 1 
 feftual without the Influence of God's Eleffed Sptrit ; His tr uc Fwb i 
 Grace, like the Sun, is that which muft Infpire the Ground^* 
 of our Heart, to make it Capable of Receiving the Good 
 Seed of His Word, and bringing forth Fruit into Salvation ; 
 without this, all our own Manuring and Cultivation is but 
 loft pains. Yet we mult prepare the Ground, and Cleanfe our 
 Heart, but that is only to render it fufceptible of the Influ- 
 ence of this Bleffed Sun of Righteoufnefs, which only gi- 
 verh Life. Therefor all the Glory, all the Praife is not to him 
 that Soweth or Watereth, but to him that giveth the lacreafe.. 
 To him the Doftrin of Satisfaction reftores the whole ot our 
 Salvation, without taking any thing from the Obligation of 
 our own Endeavours, not as Partners in the Merit, but as na- 
 tural and bounden Duty ^Creatures, and Sinners received to- 
 and Grace j which therefor to neglect is Rebellion, and 
 
 Contempt
 
 The Sixth DIALOGUE. 
 
 Contempt of God, and renders us Incapable of the Influence 
 of HisBleffed Spirit, which will not Defcend into an Impure, 
 or Polluted, nor into a Stubborn and Difobedient Heart ; much 
 lefs into an Heart fraught with the Conceit of its own Since- 
 rity, fo as to think it has no need of any Satisfefiia* for its 
 Sins, more than the Integrity and Perfection ofr its own He- 
 fentance. Upon which your felves are forc'd to Confefs, 
 you cannot leave your Souls confidently when you come to 
 Dyt> but Wifh for that Satis/A&ion againft which you Difpute. 
 A Porfiva- Judge then with your felf whether you had reafon to avoid 
 five Inference a \] the plain Ttxts which fpeak of the Satisfaction of Cri/, and 
 from the o f His Divinity, upon which it is Grounded and Confequently 
 whole * that of the Trinity, without which Ihe other cannot be . And to 
 drain your Witt to find Salvo's to turn them to another Senfe, 
 which may be done to the plaineft words can be fpoken in any 
 Language ? 
 
 And Confider, that, by the Adorable providence of God, ther 
 are no Dofrrines wherein all Chriftian Churches are fo much 11- 
 nited, as in the Trinity, The Incarnation and Satisfaction of Chrift. 
 An'd therefor Judge, to Deftroy this Do&rin, you had reafon 
 to decline the Evidence and Authority of the Catholick Church 
 in all Ages, which declar'd the meaning of thcu Scriptures, we have 
 Debated, as the Church this Day does Interpret them / 
 
 And whether you Confulted your own advantage, when you 
 .chofe for your Guides, the moft wretched Httiticks in the feveral 
 Ages, who oppos'd their Lewd Fancies to the Rf ceiv'd Do&rin of 
 the Orthodox, wherein themfelves hid been Educated and ftand to 
 this Day Condemn'd ia all the Churches of the Chriflian World ? 
 
 And all this only to carry you off from that Foundation of 
 
 Faith which once delivered to the Siints, is moft according to the 
 
 .Letter of the Scrip t are. Gives moft Glory to, and takes leaft to 
 
 our felves: Which only can give you Cowfirt or Durance in the 
 
 Hour of Death; or dare be pleaded on the Day of Judgment \ 
 
 All Glory be to The one only God, The Eternal Power, 
 Wifdom, Goodnefs, Father, Son and Holy Ghos^ Three Psrfons 
 and One God ; Creator of all things Redeemer of Mankind, 
 SanSfcr of the Eleft, whofe is the Kingdom, and the Power 
 and the Glory, for ever and ever. Amen. 
 
 FINIS.
 
 Mr. L E S L I 's Anfwer to the Remarks on 
 his firft Dialogue againft the - " j 
 
 - -vi >w,n -\>i>'\ L>oA .*iroll. v "Tt '-'A. 
 
 Since the J/'r/? Dialogue was 
 Printed ther is come out a 
 Socinian Sheet againft it, In- 
 tituled, Remarks on Mr. Cha- 
 let Lefiefs firft Dialogue on the Soci- 
 nian Controverjjr. And I think it Pro- 
 per to take notice x>f it here, for it 
 may help to Illuftrat more at Large 
 what is there faid in Ihort. And be- 
 caufe I hear fome fay, it is well 
 Wrote, and that many lay Strefs up- 
 on itC ,-' . 
 
 (i.) Firft I Obferve that this/^- 
 tnwler has not kept up to that Cha- 
 rafter the Socinian Writers give them- 
 felves (but without much Reafon, as 
 I have fhew'd in thefe Dialogues') of 
 being the faireft Adverfaries, and an 
 Example to all others of Managing 
 Controversy without ffeat or PaJJion, 
 or Perfonal Xgfleftions. For he has 
 treated me in a very RQUgh Manner, 
 calling the InftancesI bring Xjdicu' 
 lous, p. i. And that I am Paganijb in 
 in my Notions, p. 6. And lays, p. i . 
 if fuck poor Philofophy, Juch jhallcnv 
 %eajoning t and fuch grajs Divinity, 
 muft baffle the Socinians, I confefs tkey 
 ougU to be the loft mho pretend to the 
 CkarAftev of Men of tigafon. 
 
 But notwithftanding all this Con- 
 tempt of what I have laid, I can- 
 not but think it has given him fome 
 Trouble, becaufe it has made him 
 fo Angry. For it is Lofers that have 
 leave to Talk at this Rate. And as 
 you (hall fee him Talk afterwards. 
 
 (2.; My Argument was, That we 
 cannot Charge any thing to be a 
 in one Nature, becaufe 
 
 it is fo in Another, unlefs we under- 
 ftand both Natures. Becaufe a Na- 
 ur; we underftand not cannot be Ex- 
 plain'd to us but by AHufion to fome 
 Nature we do underftand. And ther 
 is that Difference in Natures that no 
 Allufion 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 
 Contradittien, while he Confiders the 
 Nature he do's not Underftand, by 
 way of Aflufion to another Nature 
 which he do's Underftand. 
 
 (3.) To Illuftrate this I gave feve- 
 ral Inftances, of which this ^mar- 
 ker hasp. i. pick'd out two to Ihew 
 his Wit upon. One is, That if a 
 Man cou'd he Suppos'd to be with- 
 out Thought, it wou'd be Impoffible 
 to make Him Apprehend what it was, 
 or the Progrefs of it, as from Hence 
 to Jfome in an Inftant, &c. It is Com- 
 mon to fay to a Man that is Mufe- 
 ing, Where are you ? And to An/Ver 
 I was at %ome, or fuch a Place. Now 
 fuppofing any one ("if it were polft- 
 ble) not to kn'ow what Thought was, 
 he wou'd Apprehend your Body was 
 Remov'd to Rgme and Back again as 
 foon as you cou'd fpeak. And 
 by AUufton to the Motion of Body, this 
 cou'd not be Reconcil'd to him from 
 being a Flat Contradiftion, that any 
 thing cou'd move a Thoufand Miles 
 as foen as a rard. 
 
 In anfwer to this the %emar ker tells 
 
 you p. i. That when you think of Home 
 
 or-. Any other Place, 'tis only the Idea 
 
 of'tt myoHT Imagination whithjou Con- 
 
 A
 
 ttmplat, and not A Leap or Local Mo- 
 tion of your Thoughts to it. 
 
 Who knows not this that has any 
 Thought? But upon the Suppofition 
 that a Man did not know what Thought 
 was, he coufd; haye no- Apprehenfion 
 of it but as of a Local Motion. And 
 what you call Idea, he wou'd fancy to 
 be fome Horfe or Coach that Carry'd 
 you very Swiftly; which yet wou'd 
 not folve the Contradiction as to him, 
 becaufe the. Swiftnefs of the Motion t 
 {uppofe it a. Cannon Bullet, cannot go 
 fro yards to foori as 
 
 . 
 
 (40 But becaufe it maybe too Ex- 
 travagant to fuppofe a Man without 
 Thought, tho' fome have very Little 5 
 and SuppofitJons are Allow'd in Argu- 
 ment even of what never was $ yet 
 I Infift not on thfcj but have given 
 anothet Jnftance which is Faft, and 
 daily before us, that is, of a Man 
 Born Blind. And how you cou'd 
 give him any Notion of Sight, orEx- 
 pVain to him how the Eye can Reach 
 a Star as foon as the Top of the Ckim- 
 nty? He can feel his Eye with his 
 ffand, and that it is there Fix* and 
 do's not go out of his Head,\iQW then 
 can he Imagin it gets a Thoufand 
 Miles off in an Inftant, while he Feels 
 it do's not Stir ^t all? He can have 
 no Notion of this but by Allufion to 
 fome other of his Senfes which he has. 
 And by the word Reach, how the Sight 
 can Reach a Star, he fancies^rww or I egs t 
 that.being all the way by which he can 
 Reach to any thing. And then know- 
 ing that the Motion of Legs or Arms 
 muft go one yard before it go's two, 
 he takes your Description of Sight to 
 he not only fome .Strange and Wonder- 
 ful thing, which he will readily Grant ; 
 hut hewilllnfuft that it isaflatCo- 
 tradiktiox. And therefore that he 
 muft not Believe it. And it is Im- 
 
 poflible t Explain it fo to him as to 
 Reconcile ;it from being aContraditti- 
 ' - 
 
 To this fays the Remarker very In- 
 genioufly, when we fee the Stars, our 
 Eyes move not up to them, but their 
 extended Rays ftrike upon the Eye. But 
 the man Bern Blind wou'd fay, No* 
 thing Strikes upon my Eye, for then I 
 fhou'd Feel it. And he knows nothing 
 what you mean by Rays or by See. 
 Nor cou'd think of any other way 
 but that the Eye muft get up to the 
 Star, or the Star come down to 
 the Eye. And your talking of Rays 
 will not Solve the Contradiction one 
 bit as to him. Nor can he be any other- 
 wife Convinc'd than by Perfuading 
 him that what is a Contradiction in 
 one Nature he underftands, muft not 
 be Concluded to be fo in another Na- 
 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 him Apprehend what it is. 
 Nothing but this can Silence his Mar- 
 murings about Contradiction. 
 
 Is it not Reafon then that our 
 Murmurings about Contradiction, in the 
 Nature vf God, fhou'd be Siknc'd, fee- 
 ing it can be told us no otherwife 
 than by fuch Words and ASufions as 
 are Proper to Man-, And that the 
 Divine Nature is Infinitly more Di- 
 flant and Diverjc 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 "Unintelligible 
 to him but what have AUufion fo 
 fome of the Senfes he has : So in 
 like manner thofe Contradictions we 
 Conceive in the Nature of God are 
 all Occafior.'d by the improper Words 
 which muft be us'd to us in Expref- 
 fing of His Nature, all Words being 
 totally Unintelligible to us, which have 
 no: Allufion to. fomething we. un- 
 drrftand. And thus we Conceiving
 
 < J 
 
 of Cod after the manner of Men, 
 make all thofe things to be Contra- 
 dittions in God which in our Con- 
 ception of the Words are a Contra- 
 dittion to Men. As that feveral Per- 
 fons (hou'd not be feveral Men, and 
 that the father fhou'd not be before 
 the Son, &c. Whereas thefe Terms of 
 Father, Son, Perfons, &c. are not pro- 
 per to the Nature of God, (tho' the 
 moft Proper we can ufe or under- 
 ftand) And therefor we are not to 
 Conceive ef them in the manner they 
 are us'd and apply'd to Men, nor 
 draw Conferences from them as we 
 do when thefe Words are Apply'd 
 to Men. Otherwife we (hall Run.into 
 the like Contradittions as the Blind- 
 man about Sight. 
 
 This will throw off all that the 
 Kgmarker fays ot Inferring three Gods 
 from the Term of three Perfons, be- 
 caufe it is fo among Men. He talks 
 like a Biind-man of Colours, of things 
 rokicb he muft Confefs he do's not 
 underftandj yet will be inferring 
 Contradictions in them. He owns he 
 cannot fpeak Properly of them, yet 
 finds fault with the Terms we ufe, 
 becaufe they are not Proper, tho' he 
 can find none more Proper. 
 
 (j.) 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 Contradiction 
 that -all things (hou'd be Prefent with 
 God (which yet he will not Deny to 
 be an undoubted Verity) becaufe it 
 is a Cotitradiftion to Men, that the 
 Paft or Future fhou'd be Prefent, be- 
 caufe then a thing wou'd be Paft 
 and not Paft, Future and not Future 
 at the fame time., 
 
 Thefe and other things I menti- 
 oned in my frtt Dialogue, but the 
 Kgmarker takes no notice of them, 
 nor will own the Abfurdity of infer- 
 
 ring Contradictions in God from Con- 
 tradiflioxs in Man, occafion'd by the 
 Improper Terms we are Forc'd to 
 make ufe of to Exprefs God after 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 
 Words that are Proper, 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 Contradictions 
 from fuch Words according as he un- 
 derftands them; then I will under- 
 take to folve afl the Contradittions 
 that he pretends to mufter up in the 
 Terms whereby we Exprefs the Ho- 
 ly Trinity. And let him (hew any 
 Difference betwixt thefe Cafes if he 
 can, only this, That far greater Di- 
 fpariiy ought to be Allow'd as to 
 the Propriety of Words when Terms 
 belonging to Men are fpoke of God, 
 than when what belongs to one of 
 our Senfis is Apply'd to another. 
 
 (.7.) 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) 
 " fo very weak as to think you move 
 " all the way to J(ome,znd are got thi- 
 " ther as foon as you think of it ? No, 
 " Sir,whatever haft you may be in tin- 
 s' ther, you go no fafter than your 
 " Legs can carry you. And (hou'd 
 " Ton Challenge all the Philojophy in 
 " the World ? Who have fo little 
 " as not to know, that when you 
 " think of R$me, or any other Place, 
 " 'tis only the I4ea of it in your I- 
 u Pagination which you, Contem- 
 " plate, and not a Local Motion of 
 " your Thoughts to it. In like man - 
 " ner, when we fee the Stars our 
 
 Eyes
 
 u Eyes move not up to them, but 
 "their Extended Rayes 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 1 not think rather, 
 u that Rome or Conftantinople fhift and 
 -* come into your Head : And then 
 * fmce >n other Cafes a lefler Vef- 
 " fel cannot contain a greater, nor 
 '* a Nut-Jhel hold an Houfe ; you 
 " might wonder how your little 
 Head fhould hold fuch great Ci- . 
 " ties ; And with the fame Philofo- 
 " phy infer, that what is a Contradi- 
 " ftion to Nutjbcls is none to Heads, 
 " and Challenge all Philofophy to Re- 
 u concile it. 
 
 Now, Reader, has he not fully un- 
 derftood me, do you think, and an- 
 fwer'd me fmartly ? 
 
 (8.) But will you fee him freely 
 Confeffmg what he thus Rtdicuks? 
 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 
 " with fomthing Incenfiftent, whence 
 " a Contritiiftim 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 of him. And having gran- 
 ted this, how can he Deny that what 
 is a Contradiction in one Nature, that 
 is, of Man, may not be fo in another 
 Nature, that is, of Cod ? Or are 
 ther any two Natures more Diftant 
 and more Different than the Nature 
 of God and of a Creature ? Or do 
 we underftand the Nature of Gcd 
 more Perjeftlj and Clearly than our 
 own Nature ? Is it not Reafonable 
 then what I faid, as he Quotes ray 
 words, p. . That v>e muft .not cb~. 
 
 4) 
 
 jeflf Contrddi&tons in the Incomprehen- 
 fible Nature of God, from Comparing 
 it with our own. Becaufe we Under- 
 ft and. not his Nature. To which the 
 Remarker fays, 
 
 . (9.) " I fhould grant this, in an- 
 " objeftof which we have noknow- 
 " lege at all : But furely if I have 
 " fome, tho' a partial knowlege of 
 " the Infinite God, I may difcern 
 *' what is Contradictory to that lit- 
 '* tie knowlegeof him. Nor is any 
 " thing more ufual or Juft, than to 
 " Deny fuch or fuch a Doftrine, be- 
 " caufe Incompatible to the Divine 
 " Attributes, to his Spirituality,Eter- 
 " nity, Goodnefs, C5V. 
 
 To which I reply, That the Nature 
 and Attributes of any thing are Dif- 
 ferent. We may know the Attri- 
 butes, when we cannot know the Na- 
 ture. As we may fee the River, 
 but cannot Reach the Spring whence 
 it flows. And this Difpute of the 
 Trinity is not about any of the Attri- 
 butes of God, but Concerning His ve- 
 ry Nature and Ejjence, and how His 
 Being is Composed, (if I might ufe 
 that Word ) of which I may fay we 
 are totally Ignorant, it is a Light In- 
 acceffible to us, we know Nothing 
 of it at all. And therefore cannot 
 Charge Contradiction in the Revel** 
 tion that is given to us of it. If we 
 look Direftly 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 Rays of the Sun, but 
 His Nature is the Sun it relf, wt^ 
 cannot Look upon if. It is Utter** 
 Darknefs to Us, 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 Contradictory to it. Alafs, how 
 little do we know of our own Na- 
 ture r
 
 ture ?, We know it only by tbe Ef- 
 fe&s and the Qualities we find in 
 eur Selves. But what it is in its 
 felf we cannot tell, we are Exceed- 
 ingly in the Dark. And fo as to 
 the Nature of Trees, Flevoers, Plants 
 &c. We find by Experience fuch 
 Effects and Venues in them, but we 
 know not the Nature or Efience of 
 them, no not of. a Pile of Grafs, 
 why of that Colour, Shape, or Venue. 
 How then can we Know what the 
 Nature of God is? Or can we fay it 
 is not Rightly J^veal'd to Us in the 
 Holy Scripture ? Do we Know of 
 what Composition our own Souls are 
 made? Or how they Aft in Us? Do 
 we Know any thing at all of the 
 Soul but by the Effects ? We Know 
 we TbiaT:, therefore we Conclude 
 we have a Soul, but what that 
 Scul is in its felf, we Know not. 
 Yet we wou'd Know the Nature of 
 ii .*. 
 
 (10.; This brings me to a Criti- 
 cifm of the l(emarter upon the 
 Parallel I made ufe of concerning 
 the three Faculties of the Soul. He 
 fays, p. 5. That the Memory is not 
 another Fatuity, but only an Aft of 
 the Understanding. Now I thought 
 that the Undemanding was only Con- 
 verfant about what was then Pre- 
 fent before it. And that the Me- 
 mory brought back Paft things, and 
 fo made them Piefent to the Under- 
 ftmdinp. Whence a Man may have 
 a good Understanding, and yet a 
 bad Memory. Do we fay of the 
 Under/landing that it forgets? I 
 take Truth or Fdjhood to be the 
 Objects of the Under/landing. But 
 is Love or Hatred fo ? A Man may 
 have an Averfion, and not know 
 the Reafm of it. 
 
 J .51 
 
 Non 4mote,Sabitli, nee poffiim dicers 
 r. : Quire, 
 Hoc tanrum fojjtim dicere,Nm Am t$. 
 
 Are ther Antiptttkys in the Unlerflaxd- 
 ing ? I think this is generally Attri- 
 buted to the Will, and it is Agreed 
 that it is a Diftinft Faculty from 
 the Understanding. And if ther be 
 Different Faculties in the fame Soul y 
 it Anfwers all the Purpofefor which 
 T brought that Parallel. Nay, if ic 
 be but fo Thought, it do's as well 
 for me, to Solve the Objection about 
 Contradiction, That ]v!en fhou'd not 
 think a Plurality of Perfons in God to be 
 a Contradiction when the fame Diffi- 
 culty arifes from a Plurality of Facul- 
 ties in the Soul. For Three Facul- 
 ties can no more be One Faculty, 
 than Three Perfons can be One Per- 
 fan. And yet thefe Different Fa.- 
 culties make up but One and the 
 Self fame Soul. 
 
 (ii/> But I hare Sufficiently 
 Caution'd that I intend not to bring 
 any Proof from thefe ParaUels, 
 Nor lay the ftrefs of the Caufeupon 
 them , yet I thought them not 
 altogether Ufelefs, to fhew Men 
 how far they may Miftake in Charg- 
 ing Contradictions j from one Nature 
 to another. 
 
 (11. ) I have likewife told, That 
 no Parallel in Created Natures can 
 Anfwer Exactly or Come up to the 
 Nature of God, only Point Him out 
 at a Great Diflance, and with In- 
 finite Difproportion. And therefore 
 that we rnuft not Argue Strictly 
 from the One to the Other. Yet 
 the Xemarfor will not Obferve this, 
 but Argues of the Perfons of God 
 as of Human Perfons. And fays, p. 
 4. If three Divine Perfons be like 
 
 three Human J?ei Jons- And if three 
 
 Divine Perfons jhould as Properly Be 
 accounted three Gods, .as three .Hu- 
 man Perfons can, in Strict Speech, be 
 
 accounted three Men -Thence he 
 
 Infers three Gods &c. 
 
 He
 
 ( 6 
 
 He cannot I thjak. . b.ut feg the 
 Fallacie of this Argument, after all 
 that I have faid. But he will not 
 fee it! He will ftill Argue Stri&ly 
 from the Word Perfon, and Apply 
 it to God in the fame manner that 
 it is Us'd among Men. If he. wou'd 
 Apply the word Father fo, (which 
 tymfelf gives to God) or God's be- 
 ing faid to Repent, to Grieve, &c. 
 What Work wou'd he make, what 
 Contradi&ions might he Infer? His 
 Brother Socinian Mr. Biddle fas I 
 have ftiew'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 made of His Wings and 
 Pfal.xci.4- Feathers ! This Savours not of the 
 Sagacity the Socinians thjnk Peculiar 
 to Themfelve's fl -.'^ s 
 
 .(i'30 Frorn the like Grofs Con- 
 ceptions the Remarker, p. 7. raifes 
 
 : Difficulties how a Begiotten Bsing can 
 be God. Thinking of Begetting af- 
 ter the Manner of Men / And then 
 the Father muft be InTime, as well 
 as ; in Nature, before the Son* And 
 it having, been told him, that flip- 
 pofing the Sun 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) You call an Effett of the 
 Sun, is indeed the very Sun it felf, 
 fo may well be as Old. By which the 
 
 ^ .very Sun we fee in the Firmameat, 
 and is many times Bigger than the 
 whole Earth, can Creep through a 
 Cr'anny, and be All of it in this 
 
 Room, aqd in a Thoufand othej 
 Places at the fame Time ! This 
 
 I 
 
 will help Traqf'Subftantiation not a lit- 
 
 tje !. But: is it fo indeed ; that this 
 
 s Sdbtlle 'So'cinian can, lee no DifFe- 
 
 rence betwixt the very Stat it Self, 
 and the Light that flows from.it? 
 It is then time to have done Di- 
 fputing with him. And he Runs 
 into as Great Abjurdities to get 
 Rid of thefe Funnels as he Charges 
 upon me for making Ufe of them. 
 He fays fas before Quoted, Seel. 
 4.; That when roe See we Start, our 
 Eyes move not up to them, but their 
 extended Hays ftrike upon the Eye. 
 But if the Rays or the Light be the 
 very Star it felf, then the very Star 
 it fclf Strides upon the Eye. Let 
 him Confider whether ther is any 
 thing fo very Grofs as this in, any 
 of. the Parallels I have produc'd. 
 And on whofe fide lies the poor 
 Philofophjf, and Shallow Rgafoning. 
 
 (14.) Therefore leaving this Sub- 
 ]et, I will now only Anfwer an 
 Observation he makes from Scrip- 
 ture, wherein he fays, p. a. Cod 
 Almighty is Perpetually exprejs'd in 
 the Singular Number, 'Under One, He, 
 Me, Thou, &c. Now left the Reader 
 of thefe Remarks fhould be Carry'd 
 away with this, 1 muft mind him, 
 That this Socinia.n fays this, without 
 taking any Notice of the Texts I have 
 given to the Contrary in the 2d Di- 
 alogue p. $?,&c. Beginning with the 
 frjt ofGenefis where God is Spoken of 
 in the Plural as well as the Singular 
 Number according to the Hehrew, He 
 is there called Gods, and %,as well as 
 God, and Me. And is He not fpoken of 
 in the Plural Number in the Form 
 of B-aptifm in the Name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and ,c.the Holy 
 Ghofl ? The %emarler ought to have 
 Mark'd this, and not to have put trfe 
 ObjeQion over again, wuthout laying 
 fomething to the Anfmer had been 
 made to it. 
 
 I this fheet gives him not fuliSatif- 
 faftion, I (hall be willing to hear from 
 him again, 
 
 Con-
 
 , \ 
 
 Contents. 
 
 i. TT IS Rude Treatment of 
 il me. 
 
 2: The Argument I made me of, 
 That we ought not to Infer a 
 Gontradittion from a Nature we 
 Underftand, to Another which 
 we do not Underftand. 
 
 3. Bis Anfaer as to Thought Re- 
 ply'd to. 
 
 4. And as to a Man Born Blind. 
 
 5. Other Inftances I brought of 
 which he takes no Notice. 
 
 6. I join Ifue with him as to the 
 Jnftance of a Man Born Blind. 
 
 7. What little Ground he had to 
 Infult me here. 
 
 8. He Exprefly owns my Argu- 
 ment to the full. 
 
 9. His Diftindion of our Partial 
 Knowledge of God will not do, 
 for we know nothing of the 
 Nature or Effence of God. Nor 
 indeed of our own or any o- 
 ther Natfire. And our Difpute 
 is concerning the Nature of God, 
 and not of ]^s Attributes. 
 
 10. He Confounds the Memory 
 and the Vnderftanding. Diffe- 
 
 . rent Faculties in the Soul 
 fhew'd againft him, And the 
 Parallel JuftifyU 
 
 11. I make this no Proof, nor lay 
 the Strefs of the Caufe upon 
 it- 
 
 12. How grofly he Argues from 
 Human Perfons to the Divine. 
 This made Biddle turn Antkro- 
 pomorphite. 
 
 1 3. He makes no Difference be- 
 twixt the Light and the Sun. 
 By which the Sun it felf comes 
 in to our Eye. On whofe fide 
 lies the poor Philosophy and Shal* 
 low Reafoning. 
 
 14. His Argument that God is Per- 
 petually exprefs'd in Scripture 
 in the Singular Number, fhew'd 
 to be otberwife ^ And he gives 
 no Anfwer to what I have faid 
 upon it. 
 
 I invite him to Reply.
 
 si! ,QI -I I r 7 * 
 
 ivjVVt/ >?{!: hue , "-y, r 
 
 '. '>.V.5vV ; : '; . ,^o ';V>.'j,'. 1' '.<: 
 
 fif-JEps. 1 b-w:*U c 'r/l.-l oj Ji. 
 
 '-^iflof. Iv^^V ivyv^wAl srcfc > 
 
 on v *frf}s^-''jn-J .11 k->/:1// -^. -K <- " /: 
 rij jo ^ .r2 3rfj .bflRfnsfcr.JJ 3ono5 5W- 
 
 -5.H 4%tCfr OJ-er. nv%K aiH ,5 
 
 sd Y^S T?( ^ 1 <l1 
 : o? i- ; t>\-^\ -.\i.-.v,vA v ' 
 
 % 3^ > .v 
 
 ,v)i' 
 
 -u'.' j:;:./i5THC] on go>(/;m iH .f : 303 Q3- as a 1 
 ...j,^ sil tns v.-^d sfb lxiw.r .W.i\& n 
 23iy^n'i!i1 it ^v.ii 94!) 'ibiffw ^ ^ 
 .obil 'Jbdv? nO .^>ii ir. ( o 03 f.'i 
 
 .l 
 
 ,^L;j/I ',; n,' I *3. :, I {.'
 
 E P L Y 
 
 'I TO- THE j^"'. ' '/%:'' " 
 
 VINDICATION 
 
 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UPON 
 
 Mr. LESLIES Firft Dialogue 
 
 On the 
 
 S O C I N I A N Controverfy. 
 
 By the AVTHEI( of the DIALOGUES. 
 
 LONDON, Printed for Geo. Strahtn over againft the Roj*l- 
 Exchaage, Cornhill. 1708,
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 HHt OT 
 
 OT T -L ' ryi 
 j J~ \. ^J t 
 
 3HT-/1O 
 
 A 
 
 MO1U 
 
 nQ 
 
 - 
 
 f;i^I V\ ; .
 
 o * n /s^l^^4VAw*. 
 
 v;| l5t-' : >u3iq'iA t-J -ryl g'Mj ifih/'ri'o 0^1 nof 
 
 A 
 
 
 , 
 
 tn TUT? 
 w i n n 
 
 
 
 \ ft IT. .-Jfi^ < f't<?^ rijji ^. dvy; --^10:1: 
 
 Vindication of the T\emarl(s t &c. 
 
 Y 
 
 - - . 
 
 for Mr. 5/W^/e becaufe he was 
 likewife a Sodnian^ and one of 
 
 (i.) "^ "]TOur Complements your Principal Writers'* But this 
 to me of Poor, -looks the more Sufpicious and 
 weak Arguments, lefs to your Advantage, becaufe 
 _ FoolifaAbfitrdiRi- of what you fay, p. 5. / may 
 S) &c. wou'd have made me doubt whether God be a pure Spirit , 
 believe you had been very Angry or be only a grofs Body. 
 with me, but that at the Cloie 
 
 of your Letter you Afture me^ (3.) But now, Sir, as to your 
 that you are Afted herein ty no Vindication^ I might give this 
 Pajfion. Short Repfyj That it is one 
 
 General Miftake of my Anfwer 
 
 (2.) Yet you feem Mov'd at from Top to Bottom. You be- 
 what I fay of Mr. Biddle^ who gin p. i. with Suppofing, Tfrat 
 Reviv'd the Old Exploded He- I admit there are Irreconcilable 
 refy of the Avthropemorphits, who Contradictions in my Scheme of 
 held God to have a Body^ and Faith '^ and therefore^ in order to 
 of the Shape of a Man^ for Support my Notions^ 1 endeavour 
 fo they underftood our being -to Support the Credit of fUin 
 made after the Image of God, Contradictions ^intimatingi That tvt 
 to be meant of the Shape of conceive of God no otherwife than 
 His Body, Was your Concern as a Blind Man of Sight^ i. e. 
 
 A 2 with
 
 (4) 
 
 with a mind full tf Cotttradittiotts. 
 And you go on with this No- 
 tion, and Repeat it often e- 
 very Page, That I Allow of Cm- 
 traditions 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 
 Contradictions Charg'd upon it 
 by the Sociniarir, you had only 
 found fault with my Perfor- 
 mance. But to fay, That I 
 Allow of thefe Contradictions, 
 and Defend them, when I ex- 
 prefly Oppofe them, and you can- 
 not but know was the very 
 Purpofe and Intent of my Un- 
 dertaking, has fomething in it 
 for which I want a Proper 
 Name. All I fhall fay, is, That 
 if this Miftake was not Wilful, 
 I have no Dangerous Adver- 
 fary. 
 
 (5.) But how came you to 
 Suppofe that a Blind Man thinks 
 Sight to be a Contradiction^. If 
 he Thought fo, he cou'd not 
 Believe ther was or cou'd be 
 any fuch thing. Ther is no 
 Blind Man but Beliefs 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 Explain it no o* 
 therwife than by Allufion to 
 fome of thofe Senfes which he 
 has. And' the Senfes are fo Dif- 
 ferent from Each other, that 
 
 the Perception of one cannot 
 be Apprehended by the Percep- 
 tion of any of the others. And 
 if we Apply the One Strictly 
 to the other, we mail fall in- 
 to Contradictions, like that I 
 mention'd of Explaining the 
 Progrefs of Sight by that of 
 ^Leggs. Which is a Contradiction. 
 to a Man Born Blind, while he 
 Conceives of- Sight after the 
 Manner of the Motion of Leggs. 
 And it wou'd be the fame 
 Contradiction for the Eyes, as for 
 the Leggs, to Move two Tards 
 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 Contradiction to him, 
 and he cou'd not Believe it. 
 But he knows this is made ufe 
 of only, as an Allufion to him. 
 And he fuppofes that the Per- 
 ception of Sight is quite of a Dif- 
 ferent Nature from the Motion 
 of Leggs, and that ther is no 
 Contradittionm.it, tho' he knows 
 not what it is/ 
 
 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 fte 
 muft fpeak of it after the Manr 
 ner of Men, for we can talk no 
 otherwife. But if we will there- 
 fore Apply StriCtly every thing 
 of Three Men to the Three 
 Per fens in the Deity, we mall 
 fall into. Manifold Contradictions, 
 
 like
 
 (5) 
 
 like the Blind man who wou'd pitch'd upon to Exprefs Sight 
 
 Meafure Sight by the Motion of to Men Born Blind. Yet they 
 
 Leggs. But then, as the Blind wou'd not think Sight to be a 
 
 Man Believes Sight ^ and that Wheel. Nor think ther were 
 
 ther is no Contradiction in it, thofe Contradictions in Sight 
 
 and is Senfible that the feem- which might Evidently be In- 
 
 ing Contradiction arifes only from fer'd from its being a Wheel. 
 
 Purfuing the Parallel of Leggs Becaufe they wou'd know at 
 
 and Eyes too StriCtly : So we the fame time, That it was 
 
 Believe that ther is no Con- but a Borrow'd Word, by way 
 
 tradi&ion at all in the H. Tri- of Allufwn, and not StriCtly and 
 
 mty. of God, but that the Seem- Properly belonging to Sight ^ nor 
 
 ing Contradiction arifes only from fully Expreflive of it; 
 our Applying too StriClly what 
 
 is Spoke of God, after the Man- (8.) And may we not maffe 
 
 ner of Men. For we have no the like Allowance as to the 
 
 Words, whereby we can Speak word Perfon when Apply'd to 
 
 Properly of God. As we have None Godt We have not a Word 
 
 whereby to fpeak of Sight or Cor- more Proper. And yet if we, 
 
 lours to a Blind Man. Apply it to God, with all 
 
 (7.) I once Dilcours'd with a the 'Properties and Qualifications 
 
 man Born Blind, and having Ex- belonging to Men, what Mijtakes 
 
 plain'd Sight to him as well as and even Contradictions may we 
 
 I cou'd, I at laft Ask'd him fall into? Which yet will not 
 
 what he thought it was Like ? Imply any Contradiction in God. 
 
 And after Confidering a little But what fb feems arifes only 
 
 he laid lie . thought it was like from our Conceiving of God 
 
 a Wheel. A Wheel! Said I, why after the Manner of Men. 
 a .Wheel ? Becaufe, faid he, You 
 
 tell me that Sight Perceives fer (9.) If you then ask me, why 
 
 veral things at once, and things we make ufe of fuch Words'* 
 
 Diftant as loon as things nearer I "anfwer, becaufe we have no 
 
 hand. Now when a W\xd. turns Better, And fas you lay p. 7. 
 
 fwift round, I feel all the Parts of God\ being faid to Repent, 
 
 of it almoft at the lame time, Grieve, &c.^) / fljoiSd not dare 
 
 and.the far theft Part of the Rimm to ufe them of God, if the Scrip- 
 
 is prefently next to me. I'pro- tare had not done it. If the 
 
 fefs I cou'd not Mend his No- Scripture had not told Us of 
 
 tion, .nor find any Word where- Three in Heaven, we had Never 
 
 by to Exprefs Sight more to his Spoke of a Trinity. But when 
 
 Apprehenfion. Now then fup- thefe things are Reveafd to Us, 
 
 pofe the Word W\xd were we are oblig'd to Receive them. 
 
 And
 
 And not to be Pert in. Charge- 
 ing Contractions upoji them j 
 which after all arife.only from 
 the Weakness and over-weening of 
 our own Vnderftanding, and our 
 Miftakes in Meafuring the Na- 
 ture of God proportionable to 
 our own. 
 
 (10.) Now, Sir, I hope you 
 will find Reafon to Alter the 
 State of the Queftion, as you 
 put it upon me, p. 2. where 
 you fay to me, you are not to 
 foew that a Seeming Contradiction 
 may be none (/or who knows not 
 f/?^r?") but that a real Contradifti- 
 en may, in fome Cafe-s, be none. 
 Sir, I utterly Except againft this 
 State of the Queftion. It is none 
 of Mine. I never undertook to 
 Prove that a Contradiction is not 
 a Contradiction. That wou'd 
 make me as Ridiculous as you 
 have call'd me. And ypu might 
 Triumph ov.er me as you Pleased, 
 if you cou'd Fix this upon me: 
 Did I ever fay, That three Ter- 
 fons in God was a Contradiction"*. 
 Have 1 not taken pains to fliew 
 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 Perfens among Men* 
 And have I not given Reafons 
 againft thus Explaining it ? Whe- 
 ther rny Reafons are Good or 
 Bad is not now the Queftion. 
 But this is Sufficient to Clear 
 me from your Charge of Main- 
 taining, That a real Contradiction 
 
 y be none. Ther 
 is no Cafe wherein a Contradicti- 
 on is not a Contradiction. But 
 ther may be a real Contradiction 
 in one Cafe, which in another 
 Cafe may be but a Seeming Con- 
 tradiction. And I hope thefe 
 ought to be Diftinguifh'd. 
 
 (i i .) I endeavour'd to Illuftrat 
 this by the Inftance of the Blind 
 Man. Which you thus Retort 
 upon me, p. 2.* where you Re- 
 peat thefe words as mine, " 'T/V 
 " impojfible to Explain to him what 
 ct Sight is, fo as to Reconcile it 
 <c from being a Contradiction to 
 " him. I anfvver (fay you) that 
 " a True and Juft Explication of 
 " it will not Contain any real 
 " Contradiction, 'tis from his 
 " Mistake alone. 
 
 Now pray, Sir, how is this an 
 Anfner to me ? Have not I faid 
 the fame ? J Tis from his Mifiake 
 alone. That's true. But whence 
 came this Afiftaket Was knot 
 from the Explication was given 
 him of Sight ? But you fay, That 
 a True and Juft Explication of it 
 will not contain any real Contradicti- 
 on. I have try'd my hand, and 
 I confefs I cannot give a True 
 and Juft Explication of Sight to 
 a Man Born Blind. Neither have 
 you. Which you ought to have 
 done, when you found Fault 
 with Mine. But it is not yet 
 too late, pray, Sir, do it. And 
 give fuch a True and Juft Ex- 
 plication of Sight, as will not 
 
 Contain
 
 Contain any real Contrttdiftion to 
 the Blind Man. I mean a C0#- 
 tradittim in your Explanation, 
 not in the Nature of the ffoV/f. 
 For the 2?/*W Man himfelf do's 
 not think Sight to be a Contra- 
 dittion, for he Wifhes for it, and 
 Bemones the Want of it; But 
 he will find real Contradictions in 
 whatever Explanation of it (I 
 dare fay) you can give by Allti- 
 fion to any of his four Senfis. 
 Yet he will not think the Fifth 
 Senfe which he wants to be any 
 Contradittion, only that it can- 
 not be Explain d to him: And 
 he Believes what he do's not Vn- 
 derfland. Yet the Socinians make 
 this Abfurd and Ridiculous when 
 we Apply it to the like Hum- 
 bling of our Vnderftanding as to 
 the Incomprehenfible Nature of 
 Cod ! The Blind Man Belives 
 what he Knows not, nor can 
 Vnderfiand, from the Teftimony 
 of other Mm, who tell him 
 they have Sight-, which yet they 
 Cannot Explain to him without 
 Manifold Contradictions as to him. 
 All which Hinders not his Be. 
 lief of it. For he Confidershis 
 own Defeft. But we will not 
 Receive the Teftimony of God, 
 in the Revelations He has given 
 Us of His Holy Trinity, becaufe 
 we Vnderftand^it not: nor can 
 Explain it fo as to be Free from 
 all Difficulty according to our Ay* 
 prehcnfon of things! We will 
 Confider Nothing of our own 
 s, in Seeking to Corners- 
 
 hend what We own to be /- 
 
 comfrehtnfble f 
 
 If you fay, That the Doftrin 
 of the Trinity is not Reveal' d 
 in the H. Scriptures, and that 
 this is the Difpute. Then let 
 it be the Dilpute. That is the 
 Subject I have Undertaken in 
 thefe Dialogues. And that the 
 H. Scriptures were fb \Jnder- 
 ftood in the Firft and Pureft 
 Ages. But as to your Objefti- 
 ons about Contradiction, I hope 
 I have given Sufficient Satis- 
 faction. And that it is made 
 yet Plainer, by thefe Repeatea 
 Objections of yours. 
 
 If I have us'd too many 
 words, it* is from that Difficul- 
 ty you put upon your own Vn- 
 derftanding to jMiftake my Mean- 
 ing, for I believe it was Plain 
 enough to others before. But 
 I Grudge not my Pains to 
 YOV. 
 
 (12.) Was it from this 
 lingnefs to Miftake that you 
 Charge me, p. 3. with laying, 
 That a Contraditlion is fometimes 
 no Contradiction, 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 Quote where I faid 
 So ? Or elfe tell how you did 
 Infer it. Tho' your Inferring, 
 and my Saying are two things. 
 Is this the way you take to make 
 me Ridiculous^
 
 CS) 
 
 ( 13.) In the fame p. 3. you And yet in the fame 
 
 Expoftulat, " why God , fliou'd ypu fay to me, " You know 
 
 et Jmpofe upon a Generation u they (the Vnitarians) don't 
 
 " of Men born 2&W, a Jong ? Deny that fome . things may 
 
 " CVee^, of the Nature - of Light " l>e CvntrtdiQions^ if Affirm'd 
 
 " and Refrattions^ and Colours, "of ^/w, which arc None 
 
 "and a Sfo of Opticks, " when faid of 6W. 
 
 " 
 
 &c. -v^ I s not this the very Abfxrdity 
 
 I fuppofe, Sir, you do. not you Wonder you fliou'd not De- 
 Mean this for .an; Argument. #y? Yet don't you Confefs it? 
 And as to the Reflection upon_ 7/W wW j # Contradiction in 
 our Creed^ you will find more 0#e Nature^ may be None in ano- 
 Spite than Senfe in it. The Do- thcr. This is Abfurd in me/ 
 ftrin of the Trinity was ^ecef- But when you fay it, it is 
 cefary towards that of the Sa- Eafie? 
 Hsfaction^ which is the Heart of 
 
 Chriftianity as I have fliew'd in (15.) I had faid, That it was 
 the .Sixth Dialogue , p. 3, &c. a Contradiction to ^/e that 
 And it is ReveaPd Short and Paft or Future fliou'd be Pre- 
 Plain-) as a Great Myftery^ not _/# , but that it was not fb with 
 to be too Nicely Inquir'd into. God, to whom all things are 
 And it had Remained in the Prefent. . To which you Reply 
 Plain Native Scripture Terms to p, 4. 
 
 this Day, but for the Ariansand " That it is no Contradiction 
 other ffereiitkf) who Invented cc for a Paft thing to be O&/V- 
 New Diftinctions to Evade this " ctively Perfent in the Idea 
 Article of Fait^ and forc'd the u And that fo it is with GW, 
 Church to follow them herein, in " who do's not Behold the Chaos 
 Order to Confute them, and Pre- tc as now Exifting void of Form, 
 ferve the Faith. Yet thefe now " nor do's he Judge Adam and 
 Charge thofe Terms and Diftintti- cc Eve to be now in their firlt 
 ons upon, the Church \ c * Innocency. I doubt fome are 
 
 " fond of making abundance of 
 
 (14.) You fay to me, p, 4. " Needlefs Gontradidions, on 
 
 purpofe to keep fome Dar- 
 ling Abfurdities of their own 
 in Countenance. 
 Sir, This was Entring upon 
 
 a You need not pretend to 
 u wonder, How I can deny^ that 
 ' c what is a Contradiction in one 
 cc Native, may yet be None in 
 
 cc another. I mou'd Wonder your Triumph too foon. For you 
 " more:, if I did not Deny fuch are not yet Quite Elcap'd from 
 * c an Abfurdity. me. You by this make no more of 
 
 all things being Prefent withGo^, 
 
 than
 
 (9) 
 
 than that he has a good Memo- 
 mory, and forgets Nothing. But 
 is there no more in the Cafe ? 
 Is his Duration then by Succeflion 
 of Time, like Ours ? Is P*rf of 
 His Duration Loft, and Irreco- 
 verably gone, like owTefterday^. 
 And do's it now Remain only 
 Objectively prefent in His Memo- 
 ry ? Do's He now only Remem- 
 ber what he was many Tears ago ? 
 If He can Remember or has a Me- 
 mory, then fome of His Time is 
 P*/. We fay Eternity is but one 
 Inftant. But how it Comprehends 
 Time within it we cannot tell. 
 For we can fpeakof it no other- 
 wife than in words of Time. But 
 it will be the fame when Time 
 fhall be no more, as it was be- 
 fore Time had a Being. Ther is 
 no Paft or Future with God, and 
 things are Prefent to Him other- 
 wife than by way of Memory. 
 And if we fay the fame of Men, 
 it will be Contradiction upon Con- 
 tradittion. And fo it will be if 
 we Meafure His Eternity by our 
 Ttme. And as Daring is it to 
 Meafure His Nature by our Na- 
 ture, or His Perfons by our Per- 
 fons. And to fay this or that muft 
 be Contradictory in Him, becaufe 
 it is fo with Vs \ When we know, 
 That the Words by which we Ex- 
 prefs Him are Proper only to Vs, 
 and Apply'd to Him but by way 
 .of Allusion. And as Improper as 
 when we fpeak of His Eternity in 
 our Words of Time. 
 
 Your 5th Page is taken 
 up with Arguments mewing, 
 That tho' we know not the Na- 
 ture of God perfectly, yet we 
 know fo much of it, at leaft Ne- 
 gatively, that we may Dilcover 
 Contradictions to it in feveral Par- 
 ticulars, which wou'd argue Im- 
 perfeElion or Mutability in God, as 
 as that He fhou'd Lie, or Ceafe 
 to Be, &c. All which I readily 
 Grant. But then you inlift that 
 this makes againft my Poption, 
 That we are not to Objed Con- 
 traditions in a Nature we do not 
 Vnderftand. That is, wherein we 
 do not Vnderftand it, as in a 
 Blind- Mans Judging of Colours, 
 by which I explain'd it. I grant 
 ther are General Contractions 
 may be faid of any thing, as that 
 the fame thing mould Be and not 
 Be, at the fame time, &c. But 
 thefe are not Contradictions that 
 Refped any particular Nature 
 more than another. And my 
 Subject was concerning a Con- 
 traaittion in a Particular Nature, 
 and this Infer'd from a Seeming 
 Parallel Inftance in another Na- 
 ture. In .which Cafe I fay we 
 muft Vnderftand 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" 
 diftions from the one to the o- 
 ther, becaufe he Underftands 
 not the Nature of Sight, and 
 therefore cannot Judge. Far lefs 
 can we Judge of the Perfonalities 
 B of
 
 C 1) 
 
 of God\*y the Perfonalities of Men, And your Socinlan do's very 
 becaufeof the Infinitely Greater little Underftand the Chriftian 
 Diftance and Diverfity of their Scheme, when he Charges it with 
 Natures. holding Three Per forts to be but 
 
 To this you fay (ibid) That One Perfon. How he will Infer 
 tho' we cannot Argue from the it from that Scheme is one thing, 
 Refemblance of the one to the but to Charge the Scheme with 
 other, yet thus much we may 
 Conclude in the General, That 
 three Perfons cannot be but one 
 . Which I never DenyM 
 Efpedally (fay you to me) 
 
 " when your felt had Granted 
 
 *' to the Socinian^ That it is a 
 cc 
 
 fon, which I reprefented to you 
 *' was what the SociniansChargd 
 " your Scheme with .- And there- 
 c , fore you were bound (but 
 
 it is Ridiculous, when the Scheme 
 do's exprefly Deny it. 
 
 And pray Confider whether 
 all thofe Arguments by which 
 you wou'd Infer this from our 
 Scheme, do not proceed from 
 the Refemblance you make be- 
 
 Contradittion to fay, Three Per- twLxt the Perfonalitlet of Men 
 cc fons (in God,) are but one Per- and of God ? Which you have 
 
 Granted me ought not be done. 
 You argue from Peter, James, 
 and John, to Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghofc. And here it is I 
 
 " wou'd not Attempt it) to (hew you the Difparity, and that 
 " fhew, that this Contradifti- no true Arguing can lie, if we 
 cc on is not Chargeable upon will Carry on the Comp*rifon in 
 u you. all its Parts, and that Strt&ly 
 
 But, Sir, how cou'd you fay and Property. For thofe Words 
 I did not Atttmpt it ? when at that are Proper to Peter, James, 
 the fame time you Infift that I and John, are not fo to Father, 
 
 Son, and Holy Ghoft ; and yet we 
 can ufe none other. But then 
 we muft not Argue Strictly from 
 the one to the other, knowing 
 that thofe Words which are Pro- 
 thought our Scheme Chargeable per to the one, are to be Un- 
 with this. In the frft Dialogue p. derftood but by way of Allufiott 
 6. you will find the Contents on (and that at an Infinit Diftance) 
 the Margin to be/TW ther is when Apply 'd to the Other. 
 uo Ccntradiftion in thofe Terms by You fay ibid. (p> 5.) / don't 
 which we exprefs the H. Tri- in this Cafe, Objeft a Coutradicti- 
 nity. Did 1 not then Attempt on in Gcd, from a Suppofition that 
 to fhew, That this Contradifti- His Nature is Refembted by Mine. 
 on it mt Chargeable vpon us ? Now I will undertake to /hew, 
 
 That 
 
 Granted it to be a Contradicti- 
 on, that Three Perfons (in God) 
 ere but one Perfw. Then furely 
 I did not fay, that three Per- 
 fons were but One Perfon, nor
 
 That all the Contradictions you 
 Objeft as to the H. Trinity, do 
 every one of them Proceed from 
 this Very Supfofoion. And if fo, 
 then you have Determin'd the 
 Caufe againft your felf. You 
 iay, That Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghojt cannot be one God. Why 
 fo? Becaufe Peter? J/tmes, and 
 John cannot be one Man. Is not 
 this Arguing from the Suppofai- 
 on, That the Nature of God is 
 Refembted by Ours ? And fo it is 
 of all the Reft of your Objecti- 
 ons, ther is None of them but 
 what is Built upon this Suppo- 
 faion which you Difclaim. 
 
 Now, Sir, keep from thefe 
 Contradictions you Object meerly 
 from the Refemblance 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 God, 
 as, that he Ihou'd Be and not 
 Be at the fame time j That He 
 fhou'd not be Infinity Eternal, &c. 
 For thefe Contradictions are not 
 Infer'd from any Refemblance be- 
 twixt His Nature and Ours. 
 
 (17.) This will Anfwer the 
 Abfurdities you wou'd Infer from 
 our DoCtrin, p. 6. As that it 
 wou'd bring Men to Scepticifm, 
 when the moft Abfurd things that 
 can be faid of God are not to be 
 Confuted, becaufe not knowing His 
 Nature, we mufl not fay any thing is 
 in Contradiction to it For ^you. 
 canl tell whether a Denyal of a 
 Trinity be not Confident with a Trl- 
 
 ..... ,, 
 
 mty, according to you, becaufe it 
 is about the Nature of God, and 
 not Vnderflanding that, we muft 
 not Objett Contradictions here. 
 
 I repeat this, only to mew 
 how Wildly you run Riot. For 
 it is Anfwer'd above. Becaufe 
 I wou'd not have you Infer 
 Contradictions in God from the 
 RefembUnce you Svppofe (and yet 
 Deny it) betwixt His Nature 
 and Ours } Therefore you think 
 Nothing whatfoever can be Cm- 
 tradittory 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 muft 
 be Meafur'd by their Nature! 
 You fay to me, (//) 
 
 (18.)" Nay fince you fay 
 ct we know not the Nature of 
 tc Altm {'perhaps he may be three 
 cc Perfons and one Man) nor of ; 
 u Trees, or a 'Pile of Grafs, we" 
 cc cannot then urge Contradifti- 
 " ons about them, and fo can- 
 u not Argue about the Nature. 
 " of any thing r- And fo we 
 * e can Prove or be Certain of 
 " Nothing. 
 
 " Nay, we cannot confute 
 cc Trans-Sub (tantiation, for we- 
 tc know not the Nature of Bread 
 Ce and Fief] (for Senfe cannot. 
 cc Reach that) and fo may- 
 u not ObjedV Contradidions ia 
 " the Cafe. 
 
 Thus you, Sir. And you are 
 
 are the firft Man ever I heard 
 
 Talk at this Rate. It looks 
 
 B 2 like
 
 like fbme Difcom$ofure> But 
 I will Turn it all upon your 
 Self. Therefore tell me, Do you 
 Pretend to Know the Nature 
 and Effence of thefe things, which 
 you fay Senfe cannot Reach ? 
 If not, (as I prefume you will 
 fay, but am not Sure, confider- 
 ing the Flights you have taken 
 already) then, Sir, it lies upon 
 you to Anfwer all thefe Extra- 
 vacancies you have put to me. 
 For I am not Anfwer able for them 
 more than Tour-Self. As to your 
 Objection of Trans-Sub ft ami ation, 
 I refer you to what I have 
 faid of it in the frft Dialogue, 
 p. 24. &c. And for all the 
 Reft, Look you to it. 
 
 (ip.) You next Obje& the 
 terms in the Creed. Which is 
 Anfwer'd before Sett. 13, But 
 you Add, Why you jhoud be Op- 
 frejfed or Anathematized for your 
 Diffent from thefe Terms, when 
 you Affent to the Text whence 
 they are Infer d ? 
 
 This is the Plea of all Here- 
 ticks. But it Returns upon them- 
 felves. They firft Invent Wick- 
 ed and Heterodox Gloffes upon 
 fuch Texts, which cannot be De- 
 te&ed by their faying they Af- 
 fent to the Texts, for that is 
 ftill in their own Senfe, and 
 they Delude many. This O- 
 bliges the Church to make Ufe 
 of Terms to Obviat thefe falfe 
 Gloffes, and to Prefer ve the Faith. 
 The Devil Quoted Texts to our 
 Bl. Saviour, but with Wicked 
 
 I*) 
 
 Intent. It is the Meaning and 
 not the Letters is the Faith. 
 The Quakers can Repeat the 
 whole Creed, and yet not Mean 
 one Word of it in the Chri- 
 ftian Senfe , But all that is faid 
 of God, and of Chrift, His Birth, 
 Pajfion, Death, Refurrettion, A- 
 fcention, and Coming to Judge- 
 ment, they Turn to what they 
 call their Light Within. There- 
 fore when we Deal with thefe 
 Men, we mult add New Terms 
 even to the Creed, to Obviate 
 their Lurking Herefie. Inftead 
 of Chrift we muft fay the Out- 
 ward Chrift, becaufe they hold 
 none but what is Inward, that 
 is, their Light within thcmfelves. 
 And fo in many other Cafes. 
 Therefore it is not the Church, 
 but the Hereticks are to be 
 Charg'd with this. 
 
 (20.; Your Third Objection 
 p. 6. is where you fay to 
 me, 
 
 " You cou'd not Confute the 
 " Pagan Notions of the Divine 
 " Nature your way : Suppoiing 
 " they held many Gods, or that 
 <c ther is but one Divine Na- 
 ct ture, and all the Thoufands 
 
 ' of particular Gods butaMul- 
 " titude of Perfons in that one 
 
 ' Nature ('as you fuppofe many 
 " Men in but one Human Na- 
 " ture) you cou'd not Confute 
 " them, by the Light of Rea- 
 tc fon at leaft, becaufe youal- 
 " low not Contradictions to be 
 <l an Argument here. 
 
 This
 
 This is flill Running upon 
 your Old Mikake, for I do al- 
 low Contradictions to be an Ar- 
 gument here. And fay, That 
 you can find None fiich in the 
 Do&rin 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 Perfons Inherent and Ef- 
 fential in the Divine Nature. 
 for then they muft have been 
 Always So. And I cou'd Con- 
 fute them by the Light of Re af on, 
 if they thought that any thing 
 cou'd be Made GOD, in the Pro- 
 per Senfe. For that God can- 
 not be Made. I wou'd Confute 
 them by the fame Argument I 
 do the Socinians in the like Cafe, 
 who fay, That Chrijt was Made 
 GOD, as I have fhew'd in my 
 Preface to the Dialogues, p. XXXV. 
 So that the Socinians and the 
 Pagans come in here upon the 
 Kke Foot. Nay, the Pagans 
 have the Advantage in Reafon. 
 For they did not think thofe 
 whom they made Gods to be 
 the Supreme God. But they had 
 feveral Ranks and Claffes of In- 
 ferior Gods, who had Particular 
 Provinces affign'd them. Under 
 the One and Supreme God. But 
 the Socinians will have Chriftto 
 be the One and Supreme God, and 
 that He was Made So. As the 
 Racovian Catechifm fays, Vnum 
 Eundemqite Secum Effecit. That 
 
 3) 
 
 God made Him One And the Self 
 fame with Himfelf. On which 
 Account they pay Divine Wor- 
 Jhip to Cbrift, the fame as to 
 God Himfelf. Eo patto quo ipfi 
 Deo. 
 
 Now I wou'd Defire the Vin- 
 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 be made God, 
 He muft be Different from Him 
 that Made Him. And fo ther 
 are Two Gods. If you fay He 
 is tlie Same. Then it will fol- 
 low that the Same God was 
 Made and not Made', was Be* 
 fore Himfelf, and Made Himfelf j 
 was Once not God, yet Always 
 was God! And many morefuch 
 like Palpable Contradictions. 
 
 By this time, Sir, you will 
 be Senlible what Advantage 
 you have Gain'd by bringing 
 in this Argument from the Par 
 gans. 
 
 (21.) You come to yourPhilo- 
 fophy at the End of p. 6. which 
 is very Extraordinary. You will 
 not let the Underftunding and 
 the Memory be two Faculties^ 
 becaufe of the Para/101 for which 
 I brought it. I laid that the 
 Vnderftanding was Converfant 
 about what was Prefent to it. 
 You dnfveer, That things Pxft 
 
 may.
 
 may be made Trefent to. it, as 
 when one is told of things Paft, 
 which. he did not Know before. 
 Jkijt then this is the firft time 
 they were Prefent to the Vnder- 
 ftantUng. I fee no Oppoiition 
 you give to me in this. 
 
 I ask'dyou if the Vnderfland- 
 ing 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 Vnderftandmg. 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- 
 flanding as Good as ever. 
 
 But you fall unmercifully upon 
 me, (beginning of p. 7.) and fay 
 to me, 
 
 " Nay, you are fo Tenacious, 
 <c 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. 
 a Right or Wrong 'tis all one 
 " to you. You will hold to the 
 c< Conclufion, let what willbe- 
 cc come of the Premifes. This is 
 " true Courage ! 
 
 Not fo very Stoat neither / For 
 I fee no Danger in't. But is 'it 
 Really fo, That you cannot find 
 out the Reafon of this ? Is it for 
 want of Memory or Vnderftand- 
 ing ? But I will Try to clear your 
 
 Eye-Sight. Know then the Mean- 
 ing is, That Men don't fe to 
 Think Contradictions. Therefore 
 whatever becomes of your Dif- 
 pute and mine about the three 
 Faculties of the Soul, yet if it be 
 a Common Opinion^ (which you 
 will not Deny) it will follow'that 
 it is no Contradiction, whether 
 it be True or Falfe. Unlefs you 
 think it is Common to Men to be- 
 lieve Contradictions! And then 
 Objecting it as to the Trinity will 
 be no Great Matter / It will be 
 no more than what men do eve- 
 ry day in Twenty other things / 
 I gave you another In fiance, 
 of which you take no Notice. 
 Therefore to Refrefh your Vn- 
 derftanding ([ mean your Memo- 
 ry , far you know 'tis all one) I 
 will fend you to it again. You 
 will find it p. 8. of the firft 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- 
 ing, before you or I were Born, 
 Tljat the Soul is All in All^ and 
 All in every Part of the Body. 
 I fuppofe you have Heard of 
 Tota in Toto, et Tota in qualibet 
 Pane. Now, as to my prefent 
 Purpofe, I am not Concern'd 
 whether this or the more Mo- 
 dern Hypothecs takes Place. But 
 this is not Charg'd with Con- 
 tradiction, it was the Common 
 and Receiv'd Opinion, and Main- 
 tain'd by Great and Wife Phi- 
 lofophers. And it wou'd be a 
 flat Contradiction to fay the fame 
 
 of
 
 ... Os) . 
 
 of Body, that it cou'd be in fe- Jncwfiforable Argument. I have 
 
 veral Places at Once. Therefore all the World againft you, and 
 
 that may be a Contradiction in they will Diftingttifi betwixt your 
 
 one Nature which is none in Memory and Vnderftanding. And 
 
 Another. This is the Ufe I had if you will not let the One 
 
 to make of it. be a little Treacherous, they 
 
 I fuppofe, Sir, you think that will Think the other very Sim- 
 
 the Soul do's not Confift of pie. 
 
 Parts, nor can be Cut or Sliced 
 in Pieces like a Body. And that 
 
 (22.) Of which you have given 
 
 it wou'd be a ContradiHion to a Sxfficion in what you fay here, 
 
 Affirm this of the Soul. Which 
 yet is very Eafie as to Body 
 
 That Three Faculties in one Soul 
 will be no Parallel for what I 
 
 And therefore you will Grant brought it, Nor mil it Refemble 
 
 that a Contradiction cannot be (fay you to me) what the Vnita- 
 
 Infer'd from the One to the rians objefttoyou, how three Per fans 
 
 Other, becaufe of the Diffe- can be but one Perfon ; Vnlefs in- 
 
 rence of their Natures. Far lefs, ftead of three Faculties making but 
 
 lay I, can a Contradiction be In- one Soul, you had Shewn that three 
 
 fer'd in GW, from the Nature Faculties make but one Faculty. I 
 
 of Man. fay this is ftrange Fbtgetfobfcfi 
 
 Now, Sir, is this Plain to in you (for 1 accufe not your Vn- 
 
 you? Have I Beat it into your derjktnding) When in my ^4- 
 
 Head at laft ? I wou'd not have fiver to your Remarks^ and the ve- 
 
 Us'd fo many Words to ano- ry place you are now upon, Seel:, 
 
 ther. Was it your Memory or 10. p. 5. I fay, That three Facul- 
 
 Vnderftanding that Forgot it ? ties can no more be one Faculty? than 
 
 But pray, Sir, tell me, whe- three Perfons can be one Perfon. 
 
 ther wou'd you rather be And you have Quoted me here, 
 
 thought a Man of a weak Me- p. 5. faying, That it is a Contra- 
 
 mory? or of a Shallow Vnder- dittion to fay? three Perfons (in God) 
 
 ftanding ? It will be in vain are but one Perfon. Yet all this 
 
 for you to fay they are the you Forget? and here, p. 6. you 
 
 fame. For the World makes Object to us Chriftians, That we 
 
 a Difference. And if you will hold three Perfons to be but one 
 
 not Chufe? they will Chvfe for Perfon. And immediately after 
 
 you. in the Beginning of p. 7. you 
 
 Therefore be not Tenacious fay, It do's not anjwtr the Ta- 
 
 (as yoa Advife me) for if it rdlel in that Point (of three being 
 
 be but Thought /0, your Work but one in the fame Senfe) for which 
 
 is done. And fhew not your I bring it. Strange Memory again/ 
 
 Courage in Defpiling this as an Did I ever bring a Parallel to 
 
 Prove
 
 Prove, or did I ever fay, That 
 Three can be but One, in the fame 
 Senfe ? Have I not been Careful 
 to Explain my felf in this, That 
 God is not Three and One, in the 
 fame RefpecT: ! . Which I grant 
 wou'd be a Contradiction. And 
 this very Contradiction I have fair- 
 ly Fixt upon one fet of Your 
 'Unitarians, in the Preface to the 
 Dialogues, p. xxi. xxil Let this 
 Vindicator Rid them of it if he 
 can. Let him Read p. 6. of the 
 frjl Dialogue, upon which he Re- 
 marks, and fee whether I have not 
 fully Exprefs'd my felf as to this 
 of the Same Senfe or the fame Re- 
 fpett ? But he will not Remember 
 it ! And will go on to Charge 
 Contradictions, by putting thofe 
 Terms upon us, which we Dif- 
 own, and Utterly Condemn \ 
 
 (23.) In the fame p. 7. he is 
 Quarrelling with the Word Per- 
 fon, and fays, 
 
 " If you affign to the Sacred 
 c Three all the Various Parts and 
 cc Diftinctions of Per font in a Pro- 
 " per Senfe, and for that Reafon 
 tc do give 'em thefe Characters , 
 " How can Confldering men 
 " think, you don't defign by it, 
 4C to give 'em an Idea of three 
 ct Proper Perfons in one Eternal 
 " He. 
 
 Sir, You have Forgot again ! 
 You faid, p. 5. / don't Object a, 
 Contradiction in God, from a Sup- 
 pofoioa that His Nature is Refem- 
 ifd by Mine. And here you Ob- 
 jeft it from nothing Elfe but 
 
 .from that Suppofitiow Whatelfe 
 do you mean by putting the word 
 Proper to Perfon ! Is it not inten- 
 ded to denote an Human Per- 
 fon, that is, whatever is Pro- 
 per to it? And is not this the 
 Meaning of thofe Parts and Di- 
 ftinftions of Perfons you fpeak of? 
 That ther fhou'd be the fame 
 Parts and DiftinEtions in the Per- 
 fons of God, as in the Perfons of 
 Men. Wou'd you then have 
 Parts in God, becaufe it is fb 
 with Men! Why Elfe do you 
 put in that Word! I doubt not 
 as the Vnity of the Nature of 
 God is Infinitly more PerfeEt than 
 the Vnity of Man, fo that the 
 DiftijtEtion of the Perfons of the 
 Deity is likewife more Perfect 
 than the DiftinEtions of the Per- 
 fons of Aden. But in a Manner 
 Ineffable Incomprehenfible to us, and 
 not to be Meafur'd by the Vari- 
 ous Pans and Diftinflions of 
 our Perfons. From which Me- 
 thod of Argument tho' youDi 
 own it, yet you Cannot Refrain. 
 You may as well infer Sexes in 
 God, whom you call an eternal 
 He. Then not a She. Do you 
 mean this by the Various Parts 
 and DiftinEtions in Human Per- 
 fons! And for that Reafon do 
 you give thefe Characters to God ? 
 Or is it becaufe you cannot Ex- 
 prefs Him otherwife ? Then you 
 muft not flick too Clofe to your 
 Proper Senfe, that God fhou'd be 
 like our Perfons in a Proper Senfe, 
 with all our Variws Parts, &c. 
 
 This
 
 This comes too #ear your 
 Friend Mr. EMU. See Setti. 
 
 
 on . 
 
 .. :<2 4 .) Butif thefe Expreflions 
 of God are not Proper? then 
 you Infer they muft be Figura- 
 tive. And you Quote me fay- 
 ing, That the Texts which fpeak 
 of the H.' Trinity are not Fi- 
 gurative. Dial. i. p. 25. ,where 
 I was fpeaking of the Compa- 
 nion the Soclnians make betwixt 
 the Trinity aiid Tr an -Sub ft ant i- 
 ation, and wou'd Infer the like 
 Abfurdities from the One as the 
 Other. Upon which I fhew'd fe- 
 veral Figures in the Words of 
 Juftitittion of the Holy Sacrament, 
 as where the .Cap 'is put for the 
 Wine in it, Continent 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 Baptize in the ^ame, 
 of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghoftt And 
 that thefe Three are One? And 
 that the Word was God ? I defire. 
 you to Name the Figure. Pray 
 did you mean any Figure when 
 you call Cod a //<?? And what 
 K^wre was it? But I find by 
 this Argument that you wou'd 
 have it taken Strittly and Pro- 
 perly, as you Speak. And by 
 the Various Parts you wou'd 
 have in God, and Properly too, 
 and by giving Us leave, p. 5. 
 
 at leaft to Doubt whether God be 
 
 .'..-.. 
 
 
 a pur* Spirit, or be only a grofs 
 Bodyt I cannot help Doubting 
 whether you are not an An- 
 thropomorphit ? I will not put it 
 upon you. But ^ your Expreffions 
 favour it. And if I Guefs Wrong, 
 yet this you, will fee by ic, That 
 when we Speak of God in Words 
 Relating tQ Man (for we have 
 none other) We muft beware: 
 of taking thofe Words in a Strift. 
 and Proper Senfe, elfe we may 
 be Betray'd into Grofs and Fatal. 
 Errors. Ther are Words that 
 are not Proper (for want of Bet- 
 ter) as in the Prefent Cafe, and 
 yet are not Figurative. What 
 Figure is it to lay that Eternity 
 is an Inftantl Yet we are fure 
 the, Exprejfion is not Proper ; 
 Nor can we Mend it, becaufe 
 we have no Word that h Proper 
 whereby to Exprefs Eternity, or 
 a Perpetual Duration without 
 Sufcejfion of Time. 
 
 
 
 (25.) But you Summ up the 
 Matter in the next Paragraph 
 and fay, " So that the Difticul- 
 " tyis no other, than how a. 
 cc Derived Dependent Being can 
 tc be GW? Which the Vnitarians 
 a Infift on much. 
 
 To which I anfwer, Firfl, 
 That if the Unitarians Inlift on 
 this, they mult Quite Difcard 
 the Socinians, and Renounce the 
 Racovian Catechifnt, which hither- 
 to has been their Text. This 
 is Ihew'd Sett. 20. And yet 
 you, Sir, Jultify the Socinians 
 C and
 
 \ -.>_..' -*> .,, * k. 
 
 iims iff Common; and 4 
 ule theirs Words Promifcuoufly, 
 as meaning the lame thing. I 
 defire therefore that you wou'd 
 Difliitgvijh thefe, and let Us 
 know what Side you are of? 
 Let not the World be Con- 
 founded with iivo Sticks that 
 fay they are One, and yet are 
 Direct Oppofits, and in fiat Con- 
 iradittion to each other. The 
 Socinians fay that the Vnitarians 
 are no Chrifiians. And the 
 IhtitariAnj think the Soclnians 
 to be Rank Idolaters. As I have 
 Shew'd in the Preface to the 
 Dialogues, Seft. Hi. Num, iii. 
 p. xxxi. &c. 
 
 (2$?) Bot now, Secondly, as to 
 your Dificnlty it felf, I muft 
 Refer you back again to my 
 Firft Dialogue on which you have 
 made Rem#rfo> There Sett. iii. 
 is a Direct Anfotr to your Dif- 
 faulty, which you have, over- 
 look'd I told you p. 12. That 
 if it were Effemial to a Man 
 to : be a father' fas we fay it 
 is. in Cody the Stn mnft be as 
 && as the '^f/wr, and yetJ5e- 
 rivative from him. Of this you 
 take no Notice. 
 
 But I gave another Illaftra- 
 tion, that of Light and 'ffrat'm 
 the Sxn, whkh proceed from 
 the :*n, and 'yet 1 are as Old as- 
 it. To whkh yon fa-v rn yonr 
 Remark, p, 7. Thirf: 'the J^jfe 
 is indued* the : 'vto~y S:n it felf, ft 
 may well he ets Old, To which 
 
 ' } 
 
 Ifaidin rfrf JtyW, p.*. That 
 ther rmift be a Difference, be- 
 caufe the Light can bfeak 
 through a little Cranny, which 
 the cannot. To this you 
 Reply in your Vindication, p. 
 7. That the Light is not the 
 whale Sun, only a Part of it, 
 and that this Part may Creep 
 through a Cranny &c. And you 
 make your felf very .flurry with 
 file upon this Occoiion, and tell 
 me, / have derided you to my 
 Coftf 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 
 confidermg what vaft Parts of 
 the Svn (if Light be a Part) 
 have been taken from it by its 
 Continual Shining ever Since it 
 was made, it muft Needs be 
 much Lefs than it was. One 
 wou'd think it fhou'd have been 
 Worn out by this time ! And the 
 Parts it'has Loft by all the Light 
 that ever has been in the World, 
 muft be much Greater, and many 
 More than what Remains! Be- 
 fides ali 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 Confumytlon e- 
 nough to have Wafttd a Hun- 
 dred Suns \ And the Sun had . 
 Sweated himielf to Death long 
 before this by all" thefe ffiiv!a 
 you Speak of/ You fay, the 
 Streams of Light are a Part of
 
 tbd ffugc Luminous Mafs. But 
 if it had been ten times as 
 Huge, thofe Streams (if Parts of 
 it) had Run it Dry, for they 
 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 Dimensions of any Body, do's; 
 he wotMeafHre all the Parts of 
 it ? Elfe it is not a true Survey, 
 Now if the Light be a P4rf 
 of the Sun, what a vaft 0^ 
 will this make? Even as far as" 
 the Light of the Sun Extends / 
 And by this, the Sun will be 
 as Bigg as the Firmament in 
 which It Moves r and Contains 
 not only the 'Sun , but the 
 Moon, and Innumerable Stars 
 which all Receive their Light 
 from the Sun , befides the 
 whole Earth, and all the Air. 
 And they fay ther are fome 
 Stars Bigger than the Sun it 
 it felf -- But that . muft be 
 only Bigger than that Small 
 Tart of it we fee in the Fir- 
 mament ! And k muft be much 
 the fmalleft Part, in Compari- 
 fon of thofe other Parts of it 
 which Fill the whole Firma- 
 mem ! 
 
 And will not the fame Rea- 
 fon make the Light of a Can- 
 die 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 Loojes 
 more Parts than wou'd make 
 
 ten Th&ufand Candl*$,zi\& 'yet is 
 never the Lefjer, kit^Jaft the 
 fame Candle it was before/ 
 
 Sir, fuppofe I Light yoa 
 down Stairs with a Candle ia 
 my //W, is Part of that C**- 
 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 Doctrin of the Ho- 
 ly Trinity to the Apprehenfi- 
 ons of Men, and Save it from 
 thofe Contradictions you Charge 
 upon it? 
 
 You Defpife the Parallels \ 
 have made ufe of, and have ta- 
 ken a great Deal of Pains to 
 Fix Absurdities 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- 
 ruled me to your own Coft ? 
 And if you have taken from 
 me the Occafion yet to lay, 
 O Subtile Sodnian \ 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 
 tc wou'd Entertain the Coffee- 
 lt Houfes for one year with a 
 u Courfe of your Philofcphy, I 
 " dare promife you many Ad- 
 u mirers j and when that has 
 " Prevailed, no doubt but your 
 " Divinity will go off
 
 After this> 
 I wou'd mils none of your Ar- 
 guments) that ther is one Text 
 Pfal. 45. 7. Where the word 
 Elohim is Us'd in the Singular 
 Number, (for which I will take 
 your word at prefent) But you 
 Deny not that it is General- 
 ly taken in the Plural. Which 
 is Sufficient to overthrow your 
 Objection that God is Always 
 fpoken of in the Singular, a /, 
 Thou, tie, &c. And as to His 
 being Mention'd likewife in 
 the Plural, you put it off with 
 the Modern Stile of Princes, 
 who fay We for the Greater 
 Majefly, as it is Now thought. 
 But I believe you will not find 
 this Fajhion of -Stilt to have 
 been fo old as Mofes. I remem- 
 ber it aot in all the Hiftory of 
 the Bible. And can any Ima- 
 gin that God at the Creation 
 fhou'd take the Plural Stile to 
 Himfelf> and fay, Let us make 
 fldan in our Image, after Our 
 Likenefs, in Profped only that 
 the like Plural ftile wou'd be 
 taken up by Worldly Princes ? 
 Is it not much more Probable 
 that the Princes fhou'd rather 
 take it up and think it more 
 Majeftick, becaufe k had been 
 Us'd by God Himfeif ? But by 
 this Defence you own that God 
 is fpoken of in the Plural as well 
 as the Singular Number. 
 
 (2%.) In your laft Paragraph, 
 p. 8. You who are againft im- 
 
 _ . and for keeping 
 
 Stri&ly to the Scriftvre Lan- 
 guage, .take upon you to im- 
 pofe new Terms of three Infinite 
 Minds And: this fo Peremptorily, 
 that ^ou fay, Till I ft ate my No- 
 tion fia thefe Terms) all my Com- 
 ments on other Texts are Arrows 
 flwt at no Mark. And as a Ge- 
 neral Atficer to them All, you 
 fay to me, 
 
 cc Your Expofitions arc Pre- 
 c carious, or go no higher 
 u . than Af&a&frk, or are Ob- 
 <* viated oft in the Sodnian 
 " Comments-, and in Anfwer- 
 " ing their Texts you are as 
 " Modeft as if you had faid 
 " Nothing. 
 
 Sir, I was not asking your 
 Character of my Performance. 
 If you had given any Anfmr 
 to what I have faid, you fhou'd 
 be Welcome. But this only 
 mews you are Angry, and that 
 I have faid enough to give you 
 Difturbance. 
 
 (29-) Your laft Demand of 
 me, p. 8. is in thefe words, 
 tc Pray, Sir, tell ns whereabout 
 " your Anfwer is to the Text, 
 " of that Day knomth my Fa- 
 " ther only, which fome cannot 
 c find among your Anfwer'd 
 
 " Texts And no Text is 
 
 " more Urg'd by the Vnitari- 
 tc am. 
 
 Sir, I will Gratify you all I 
 can. Tho' if you had Read 
 but the firfl Page of my Fourth
 
 ,',-.- (UO) 
 
 Dialogue, you might have Sa- *ns aftd among the Unitariws 
 
 tisfy'd your felf. For there I too, than any they Charge up- 
 
 give one General Anfner to on our Dottrin. And then Chufe 
 
 thofe Texts which fpeak of the which you think mofl Free from 
 
 Human. Infirmities of Chrift, as Contradictions. 
 His being Paffible, Improvable, 
 
 Reward able, &c. Whereby Im- (31.) But I have one word 
 
 proveable I meant the Text you more. If you were Aded here- 
 
 Mention, and that when He in by no Paffion or Prejudice, 
 
 fpake thofe words thatD*y might what needed that fly Infi- 
 
 not have been Reveal' d to Him. nuation you give, p. 4. of my 
 
 For He knew not all things being .Anther of that Book 
 
 at once. It is faid Ltd. 2. 52. calPd the Regale, and coming 
 
 Jefits encreafed in Wifdom and ill with that Mobb -Objection of 
 
 Stature, &c. All which mew His Endeavouring to Reconcile the 
 
 State as Man, but have no Re- Galilean and Englifo Churches ? 
 
 lation to His Divine Nature, I wifli I cou'd Reconcile all 
 
 which Communicated to His the Churches in the World. 
 
 Human as He thought fit. But this was going out of your 
 
 way to Reach a Blow at me. 
 
 (30.^) You Conclude thus to This had no Relation to the 
 
 me. Difpute in which you and I 
 
 " I aflure you I am a&ed were Engag'd. It was Hall'd 
 
 " herein by no Paffion, except in perfectly by Head and Shoul- 
 
 ** it be a Paffionate Defire of ders. But you have told me I 
 
 u feeing our H. Chriflian Re- muft not lay it upon Paffion 
 
 u ligion refcu'd from the Bur- or Prejudice. And fo I forgive 
 
 cc den of Contradidions. you. 
 
 Sir, if you think the Socini- 
 ans Concern'd in Chriftianity, or 
 Chriftianity vath them ', And 
 have fo Paffionate a Defire to 
 fee it Refcu'd from the Bur- 
 den of Contradictions, you wou'd 
 do well to Conlider Sett. u. 
 of my Preface to thefe D/- 
 alogues, for there you will find 
 more Flagrant and Jrreconciable 
 Contradictions among the Socini- 
 
 (32.) And now, Sir, I have 
 gone over your whole Vindi- 
 cation. I think I have left No- 
 thing in it which I have not 
 Anfwerd. Becaufe you Gom- 
 plain'd I had not Anfwer'd 
 your Remarks folly enough. I 
 have Us'd many more Words 
 than I thought Neceflary. to 
 Intelligent Readers. But I was 
 Refolv'd to make things Flaw 
 
 thai.
 
 that you wight net Mfttk I fcave Divided Mine into 
 my Meaning ( if Poffible ) a- &ftiwf> that I might not Ram- 
 nother time. And I fhall be W'r but keep Clofe to one 
 very willing to hear from thing at ojice. If you, did the 
 you again, how this Pleafes like, it vvou'd fave you many 
 you. Repetitions. 
 
 i-iOtv i:-' x '></* " 1 '. ~ ' ".. -. 
 
 -:T3sf kd5A ^3 -.7 :-; -if' ' .riom ; 
 /.^ .Y^v-.'-l . 70 p.-.n\*.-i '/ r 
 .-*;ul. - Yu 4L=i- w/-^n - 
 
 .^3vt^ UOY oi . 
 
 c$I :i/-^.r !>"" 
 ,ti nl foco , : f/ai, ? Vi*.^ ? 
 : /> v.-a'r^^Kv iA^fx i^flg _ 
 
 ""/" 
 = ^iijn;;D . 
 
 . ' 
 ' 
 pid.J^I 
 
 ?oa- OTcii ,1 i 
 
 -.. , . ( - _. , ., 
 
 
 
 :. /',.-.. 
 .-" 
 
 -*'** ^ 'r. 
 
 Y. 
 
 -';; ... 
 - ;1 J !; tir : 
 
 > ]..:;. !,'(>/ '1 
 b C li- . 
 
 !'-; htifi |jr.:>5 . TH F 
 
 . bjoi ;: 1 AlJi 
 
 sA fiO 
 I i>: 
 
 \
 
 . 
 
 T M O 3 
 
 
 
 
 THE 
 
 . 
 
 if. 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 
 
 r lS Complements. 
 
 2. /#* Concern for Mr. 
 lie. 
 
 3. miflakes me Quite through. 
 
 4. //<? makes me Juftify Contra- 
 dictions. 
 
 5. A Blind-Man dos not think Sight 
 r0 ^ ^ Contradiction. 
 
 6. Nor do we think the H. Trinity 
 to be fo y tho* we Vnderftand 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 ufe that Word, and the 
 Word Trinity. 
 
 10. He Mis-States the Queftion. 
 
 1 1. Sight cannot be Explain'd to a, 
 Man Born Blind. Tet he Believes 
 what he do's not Under/land Ap- 
 ply d to the Dottrin of the Holy 
 Trinity. 
 
 1 2. He Charges upon me what 1 ne 
 ver~faid. 
 
 13. The Hereticks the Canfe of add- 
 ing New Terms in the Creeds. 
 
 14. The fame thing Abfurd in me^ 
 and Eafk in Him. 
 
 ' 
 
 15. Things are otbcrwife Prefcnt to 
 God than by Memory. 
 
 1 6. We may Difcover Contradiftions 
 as to God. But not by way of 
 Measuring His Nature with Ours. 
 Which the Vindicator Grants. Tee 
 Infers Contradictions no other way. 
 
 17. He runs Riot as to Scepttcifm. 
 
 18. His Argument from our not 
 knowing the Nature of things Turn'd 
 upon him. 
 
 19. Why the Socinians owning the 
 Texts which fpeak of the H. Trinir 
 ty is not Sufficient. 
 
 This Extmplify*d in the Quakers. 
 
 2O> His Argument from the Pagans 
 makes againft him. And the Soci- 
 nians fliew'd to be Worfe Idolaters 
 i than the Pagans. And guilty of 
 Polytheifm. 
 
 21. His pretty Philofophy in making 
 the Underftanding 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 likewife, That the Soul is AH in 
 AM, and All in every Part of the 
 feody.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 What is a Contraction to Soul is 
 None to Body. And e Contra, 
 
 32- -He fitlfly Charges the Chriftian- 
 Seheme with holding three Pcrfbns 
 to be but One Perfon. 
 
 23. He fuppofes the Perfons of God 
 to he Like the Perfons o/Men 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 think the Socinians to be 
 Grofs Idolaters. Tct the Vindi- 
 cator makes Both to be the fame. 
 
 26. Some Sport with hint about his 
 making the Light to be a Part of 
 the Sun. h woud have Exhaufted 
 the Sun long ago. And makes it 
 at Bigg as the Firmament that 
 Contains if. 
 
 This he was Forced to, to Avoid the 
 Parallel I brought. 
 
 27. His Single In ft once of Elohim 
 being taken in the Singular. His 
 Simile of Princes taking the Plural 
 Stile will not do as to God. 
 
 28. The Vindicator Jmpofes New 
 Terms as to the Trinity. Tet 
 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 more Gnilty of 
 Contradictions thm the Ortho- 
 dox. 
 
 31. The Vindicator fays he is not 
 Atted by Paffion. Tct he went out 
 of his Way to do me a Prejudice. 
 
 32. I have Anfwer y d more Fully than 
 was Needful^ except to the Vindi- 
 cator, to make things Plain to him. 
 
 . Who may let me here from aim a- 
 gain^ if he be not Satisjy'd. 
 A Method whereby he may Save Re-; 
 petitions. 
 
 FINIS. 
 

 
 EY"I 
 K 
 _ JL V 
 
 TO THE 
 
 EXAMINATION 
 
 OF HIS 
 
 Laft D I A L O G U E, 
 
 Relating to the SATISFACTION 
 
 JESUS C H R I S~T- 
 
 IN A 
 
 LETTER to the AUTHOR. 
 
 W ITH A 
 
 SUPPLEMEN T 
 
 I N 
 
 ANSWER to Mr. CLENDON's 
 
 TREATISE of the Word PERSON. 
 
 LONDON, Printed and Sold by the Bookfellers of 
 
 and
 
 \ 
 
 '-3. A 
 
 >- v__x, 
 H 
 
 an;r OT 
 
 HO IT A MI 
 
 T 
 
 r> 
 
 8 III O 
 
 I 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 S 
 

 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 HE is JtiSRude to me. p.,i. 
 I. His Argument that an 
 Equivalent Satisfaction u In- 
 confijtent with Free Pardon. 
 
 . ibid. 
 This Retorted upon him. p. 2. 
 
 II. Him the Satisfaction Corn- 
 plea t, and yet the Grace per- 
 fettly Free. ibid. 
 
 III. He allows of Satlsfa&ion, fo 
 it be not Compleat. p. 3. 
 
 IV. His Error in Afeafuring the 
 Juftice of God, by the Juftice 
 of Men. p. 4. 
 
 V. No Reasonable Account o.f 'the 
 Death of Chrift upon the So- 
 cinian Foot. p. 5. 
 
 VI. The Abfurdity f hi* Parallel 
 of One Perfon making Satis- 
 faftipa fo Another^ us among 
 Men. tbid. 
 
 VII. He Confounds the Nature of 
 Juftice and Mercy even a- 
 mong Men. p . 8. 
 
 VIII. & Interpretation of Ifai. 
 - liii. ii. p- 10. 
 
 IX. -<4W / rjbe T<?r/.r Sacrifice, 
 Propitiation, Atonement, GTT. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 X. /if i4^f s them have no Relation 
 to the Death of Chrift, but only 
 to \>is Interceflipn. p. 1 1 . 
 
 fff fays the Sufferings and Death 
 of Chrift KM only for a Trial 
 of his Vertues, p. 12. 
 
 That we are Saved by folbwing 
 bis Laws ad Example, ibid. 
 
 XI. This mil not Solve the Scrip- 
 tures which Attribute our Re- 
 demption to His Death. ibid. 
 
 Nor will it An fiver the Types 
 of Him under \ the Law. ibid. 
 
 XIK His Wonderful Interpretation 
 <?/Ad iv. 27, 28. not to Relate 
 to the Death of Chrift. p . 13. 
 
 The Neceffity of the Death of 
 Chrift Jhew'd from the Scrip- 
 tures, p. 14* 
 
 God do's not Determine Men to 
 Sin, but over-Rules the Events. 
 
 p. if* 
 
 XIII. His Interpretation of Gal. 
 iii. 13, ibid. 
 
 It cannot be Afllfd to Chrift as 
 an Interceflbr, but only at * 
 Sacrifice fr Sin. p. 16. 
 
 XIV. He will not have the Wrath 
 of God againf Sin t & be Jhened 
 at an in the Sufferings of 
 Chrift. p. 17- 
 
 The Contrary {hewed by Hit Suffe- 
 ring/or our Sins. ibid. 
 By His being <wHigh-Prieft./>.i8. 
 
 XV. The fallacy of his Argument 
 that we are not to Forgive with- 
 out full Satisfaction, fat**fi 
 God did not. p. ip 
 
 The Forgivenefs 0/God the mofr 
 Full and Free that is Pojfiblo 
 
 p. 20; 
 
 XVI. Hit Grand Argument for 
 Leaning the Merit of the Death 
 of Chrift, by flaring aff in- 
 
 the
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 " the Intefceffion, fully Anfwe* 
 red. p. 21. 
 
 XVli. As likewife his Argument 
 from David'j being Forgiven up- 
 an his Repentance, without 
 'Sacrifice. p> 24. 
 
 Where Heb. X. *6. is Exflxined. 
 
 p. 25. 
 
 XVIII. He fays God fieri d have 
 Commanded the Jews to Cruci- 
 fy Chrift. Otherwife that it 
 lotikt like an Accidental thing. 
 
 p. 25. 
 
 XIX. He denys the Legal Sacri- 
 fices to he Types / Chrift} 
 only, Political Institutions hy 
 God as their State Ruler, in 
 the Language of the Rights. 
 Yet he Grants them to he Al- 
 Idfions. j>. 27. 
 
 The Sacrifices had no Aflufion t 
 the Interceflion, only to the 
 Death of Chrift. p. 29. 
 
 XX. He quotes a great Prelate 
 bis four Diicourfes afainfl the 
 Satisfa&ion, and Quibbling vp- 
 on the word Infinite. ibid. 
 
 XXI. He Accufes .me fir Mai- 
 Treating -an Illuftrious Arch- 
 Bifhop (whctnJ. neither Nape 
 nor Quote) as being a Socinian 
 for making Heft Precarious. Yet 
 rooud Clear the Socioians from 
 this. But Argue $ j or it at the 
 fame time. p. 30. 
 
 XXII. He Ridicules Scripture- 
 Expreflions. p- 31. 
 
 XXIII. His. Banter upon the Per- 
 foflS of Gcd Retorted. The 
 Socinians much more Abfurd 
 
 Contradi&ory in this Point 
 
 than what he Charges upon Vs. 
 
 p. 33. 
 
 XXIV. His Notion of the Inter- 
 ceffion liable to the fame Dif- 
 ficulties as the Doftrine of Sa- 
 tisfaftion. ibid. 
 
 XXV. His Objection againfl Bowing 
 at the Name of Jefus anfaered. 
 With tht Reafon of it. p. 34. 
 
 XXVI. His Defence of the Soci- 
 nians bring Chriftians Conft- 
 der*d. p. 3-5. 
 
 He makes not Faith of the Ef~ 
 fence of A Chriftian,^ Mora- 
 lity. f . 37 . 
 
 The Alcoran calls Jefus the Word 
 ef God, which the Socinians 
 Deny. p. 38. 
 
 They prefer Mahometifm t* Chri- 
 ftianity, Which they make E- 
 qual to Paganifm. p. 39. 
 
 XXVII. The) ^rgJd formerly that 
 the Heathens knew nothing of the 
 Trinity. Tet vow make it an In" 
 uention of the Heathens, ibid. 
 
 Tht DoH:rine of the Trinity has 
 no Relation to the Plurality of 
 GoAs among the Heathens. ^.40. 
 
 XXVIII. The MvantagehcwoH'd 
 take from Dr. Sherlock '/ Ex- 
 planation of tht Trinity, do^s 
 no Service to his Caetfe. ibid, . 
 
 XXIX. As little do's his Obferva* 
 tion that the Name of the Churclv 
 is taken up by all Seds. p. 41. 
 
 XXX- An Anfwer to the De- 
 leant, witb which he Concludes, 
 concerning Liberty of Conlci- 
 ence, and Perfecution. Where- 
 in ther is a Touch of his own 
 Sufferings. ibid. 
 
 Mr.
 
 vfesU Mr - LESLIE ?;g 
 
 HIS 
 
 ANSWER, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 EXAMINATION 
 
 OF HIS 
 
 Laft DIALOGUE, &c. 
 
 Iii a LETTER to the AUTHOR.' 
 
 Si R, 
 
 Since you ftill Continue the Do&rine of the Satisfa&ion 
 your Rude Treatment of is its feeming Inconfiftency with 
 me, I will mind you no the Free Grace of God. For 
 more of it, becaufe 1 fee thus you fay in your firft Page, 
 you cannot Help it. w_hich is mark'd p. 3. they (the 
 
 Socinians) can bear with any No- 
 
 (I.) Therefore without more tions here, which don't Subvert 
 Prefacing I come to the Point, the Juftice of God y or Sully the 
 Your great Objection agaiuft Glory of his Free Grace in the 
 
 A Pardon
 
 Pardon of Sin. Again you fay 
 at the end of p/7. 
 
 " It may perhaps appear, that 
 \ the Honour of God's Govern- 
 " ment, and the Ends of Pi- 
 " ety, are at lealt as well Pro- 
 " vided for by free Pardon, as 
 u by an Equivalent Satisfaction. 
 " Certain it is, that Love to 
 " God is the Nobleft Root of 
 " all Pious Endeavours ; and as 
 ic Certain that the leB Pree 
 <c Grace we believe ther is in 
 <c God'j Pardon the lefs we fhall 
 cc Love him : for to whom little 
 44 is Forgiven, the fame will Love 
 " but little. Luk. 7. 47. 
 
 Now, Sir, if this Argument 
 proves any thing, it will Infer, 
 that if any Condition be Impos'd 
 towards our Forgivenefs, or any 
 Punijhment, tho' nver fb little, 
 be Inflicted upon us for our 
 Sins, then we fhou'd Love God 
 the lefs, for it is the lefs a 
 "Tree Gratuitous Pardon. Nay, it 
 cannot be perfedly Free and 
 Gratuitous, if any thing at all 
 be Requir'd of Us for it. And 
 fo, to ufe your own words, 
 it will Sully the Glsry of God's 
 fret Gract in the Pardsn of 
 $i. 
 
 How then came you to give 
 this Account of the Difpute 
 betwixt Us and the Socinians 
 as you fet it down p. 3. where 
 you fay, 
 
 " The moft Pinching and 
 <c Obvious Argument which the 
 *' Unitarians injQft on, is, the 
 
 " 
 
 fnconfiftency of a Stritt Equ- 
 " valent^ Meritorious SatisfaCti- 
 <c on, with Free Gratuitous Par- 
 " don. 
 
 In this you are Pleas'd to 
 call me very Ignorant, and that 
 none ever Manag'd the Matter 
 more Feebly or more Unfairly t 
 and that / have but jufl Dipd 
 into the Controverfy, and don't fo 
 much as Vndcrfiand the true Stats 
 of it. 
 
 But this (hall not put me off 
 I wiH pretend to Underftand 
 fb much, That a Free Gratui- 
 tons Pardon (in the Senfe you 
 Mean it) is not only Inconfiftent 
 with a Stritt Equivalent Meri- 
 torious Satisfaction^ but with any 
 Satisfaction, Condition, or Punifr- 
 mtnt whatfoever. 
 
 (II. ) I think that the StriEt 
 Meritorious Satisfaction of Chrift 
 is no ways Jnconjiflent with the 
 Free Grace of God in the Par- 
 don of Sin. For that as the 
 Juftice of God did Require fuch 
 a Satisfaction, becaufe Lefs is 
 no Satisfaction, for what is not 
 a Comfleat Satisfaction, is not 
 Satisfaction : So God's giving 
 Chrtjt to Us to make this &*- 
 tisfaftion, was perfectly Free and 
 Gratuitous in Him, without any 
 Merit of ours, or Claim that 
 we cou'd lay to it, and fo we 
 Attribute our Pardon to His 
 Free Grace. Thus the SatisfaCli- 
 on is Comfleat, and yet the Grace 
 perfectly Free. 
 
 (HI.) I
 
 '(HI.) I. come now, Sir, to 
 the Vnfwer; ydu give to this. 
 You fay* p. /$ TV all Condi- 
 tlons 0r?~?ot Inconfiflent with Free 
 Grace ^ TVf /?// Stnttly Meritor i- 
 ous are fo. This you barely fay, 
 but Offer not one Word of 
 Proof. And I am not To lg- 
 norant as to Accept your Naked 
 Affertionj without fome Reafon. 
 for it. You bring in the Cafe 
 of Ranfom^ and fay, p. 13. 
 
 ec And even where a Ranfom 
 " in the molt Proper Senfe is 
 cc given, it do's not Suppofe 
 tc an Equivalent^ but whatever 
 tc fhall be Agreed on. Exod~ 
 ct 2,r. 30. 32. Thirty Shekels of 
 ct Silver was the Ranfom of the 
 <c molt precious Valuable Life, 
 " if it happen'd to be Forfeit- 
 " ed by the Law there Men- 
 ct tion'd $ Which was next to 
 ic no Confideration, if Lives 
 " were as Precious then as 
 cc now. 
 
 But, Sir, Your next to no Con- 
 f deration will not do. For ther 
 was a Confederation, and any 
 Confideration is Inconfftent with 
 a. Free Gratuitous Pardon. If I 
 am Oblig'd to Pay Thirty Shekels 
 to Save my Life, or to Dif* 
 charge a Debt of Ten Thoufand 
 Talents, no Man can fay, that I 
 was Freely forgiven. Becaufe 
 if I have not the Shekels to Pay, 
 I muft Die the Death, and am 
 Lyable to the whole Debt. 
 
 Sir, You do me a great Cre- 
 dit to Join me with the Learn- 
 
 ed Dr. StMitigtieet in this Argti- 
 ment. And Imuft Bxcufe your 
 Treatment of . me, fnice you 
 Ufe him little .better. You Re- 
 peat an Argument of his in 
 thefe Words, That Pardon was 
 not Inconpftent with Sacrifices of 
 Atonement^ 'and why flwu'd it be 
 more Inconfiftent with the Sacri- 
 fee of Chrifi l ? To this you An- 
 fvrer p. 12,. and lay, 
 
 " 'Tis not Inconfiftent with 
 " Chrifl'j Sacrifice^ but with 
 " his Mcritorww Equivalent SA- 
 ce tisfaftion j and therefbre-iW-. 
 4C don agreed with the Legal 
 <c Atonements^ becaufe they were 
 " not a Meritorious Infinite Sa- 
 " tisfattion. And if Jews or 
 " Gentiles had thought fb, and' 
 " yet own'd a Gratuitous Re- 
 u miffion, they, were as Incon- 
 ** liftent as others now are. 
 
 Neither do you, Sir, own a 
 Gratuitous Remiflion, when you 
 Confefs that Legal Atonements^ 
 and our paying fan of the 
 Debth Neceilkry. But it feems 
 the lefs Meritoriou* the Satis- 
 faftion is, it is the Better with 
 You ! You Quarrel not the Sa- 
 crifice of a Beaft, becaufe it is 
 not Equivalent to the Demerit 
 of Sin : But you cannot bear 
 the Sacrifice of Chrifl y becaufe 
 it is Equivalent! How differ- 
 ently do you argue from St. 
 Paul, who faid it was Imfofli- 
 hie for the Blood of Bulls and 
 Goats to take away Sin. And 
 therefore that it was .Neceflary 
 2 a
 
 (4) 
 
 a more Noble Sacrifice fhou'd 
 come, which fhou'd be Worthy 
 to take away Sin. And that 
 the Lam was taken away for 
 the Weaknefs and Vnprofitable- 
 mfs thereof. For, that */ a Law 
 had been which Coud have given 
 Life, verily Right eoufnefs had be en 
 by the Law? and ther had been 
 no Need of the Gofpel. None 
 at all by your Account, if a- 
 ny Bargain wou'd have done 
 it, Thirty Shekels, or half a one, 
 if fo Agreed^ or the lifting of 
 a Straw?, which wou'd have 
 Made the Remijfion more Gra- 
 tuitous ! This I infifted upon at 
 large in my Laft Dialogue to 
 which you now Anfiver, but 
 have not taken the leaft No- 
 tice of what I made the Strength 
 of the Caufe. And if you will 
 Read that Dialogue over again, 
 you will find it a Dired Reply 
 to this Anfwer of Yours. And 
 that! was Aware of all the Ob- 
 jections you had to put, Not- 
 withftanding of my Ignorance 
 in this Controversy. 
 
 And here I might End my 
 Anfoer to your Long Examina- 
 tion^ which, befides. many Re- 
 'petitiettSi has nothing Material 
 in it that I , have not Already 
 taken Notice of, either in this, 
 or in the Lap Dialogue. 
 
 (IV.) But for your own In- 
 formation (if you are Willing) 
 and of Others who are led a- 
 way with thefe Pretences of the 
 
 I will Difcover to you 
 the falfe Foundation whence all 
 your Arguments and Objections 
 flow. Which is this, That you 
 will Argue Striftly to the Na- 
 ture of God) from that Refem- 
 blance of it which is found in 
 the Nature of Man. This you 
 own'd to be Vnretfonable and 
 not fit to be done, in your 
 Vindication of your Remarks on 
 my Firft Dialogue^ and of which 
 I Minded you in my Reply to 
 your Vindication, and you have 
 not thought fit yet to Rejoyn. 
 But you fall into the fame 
 Error again in this your Exa- 
 mination^ and Meafure that Ju~ 
 ft ice which is God, by the faint 
 Refemblance of Juftice in Man. 
 And Reckon of Sin no other-. 
 wife than as a Debt of Money 
 betwixt Man and /(fan. Which, 
 becaufe a Man may Remit with- 
 out any Satlsfa&iofy thence you 
 Argue that ther is no Need 
 of any Satisfaction to be made 
 to God for all our Sins. Tho* 
 as I told you your Companion 
 will fail even in this, becaufe 
 when a Man Remits a Debt 
 due to him, it is call'd an 
 Ad of Mercy i not of Juftice. 
 For Jnftice will Require the 
 Uttermoft Farthing. And God 
 being Juftice^ in the Abftraft, 
 confequently muft Exatt^ even 
 by the Neceflity of His Nature^ 
 whatever Juftice do's Require, 
 becaufe He is not only Jnft> as 
 we fay of Men^ tbat is, has 
 
 fbme
 
 fome Jftjfict in him, but He 
 is y/?/V* it Self. And whate- 
 ver belongs to the Nature of 
 Jnjlice, belongs to the Nature 
 of God. And Sin is Contrary 
 to His Nature, far otherwife 
 than a Debt of Money is to 
 ^/w. So that we cannot Ar- 
 gue Striftly and Throughly from 
 the Owe to the Other. Yet ther 
 is a Refemblance betwixt them 
 in many things, and of Ufe to 
 Us. 
 
 And as in a Debt of Money, 
 if any Part be Exaded, fuch 
 Debt cannot be faid to be Free- 
 ly forgiven : So cannot we fay, 
 That Sin is Freely forgiven, 
 while- we Feel the Punifiment 
 of it in all the Miferies and 
 Afflictions of this Life, in Pain- 
 ful Sicknefs and Death at the 
 Lafl. 
 
 Nor is ther any other way 
 whereby the Pardon of our Sin 
 may be call'd perfectly Free and 
 Gratuitous, but only in the per- 
 fe&ly Free and Gratuitous Gift 
 of God, in fending His Son to 
 be a Propitiation for our Sins. 
 
 (V.) And ther is no other 
 Reafonable account can be gi- 
 ven for the Death of Chrift, 
 but as a Propitiation. For nei- 
 ther as a Teacher, or Example, 
 or as a Mediator and Intercej- 
 for, was ther any Neceffity for 
 His Dying. You fay it was to 
 Confirm the Truth of his Do- 
 ftrim. But that do's not 
 
 firm it, for fome have Dy*d 
 Errors. And the Proof of that 
 can go no further than that a 
 Man is Strongly Perfuaded of 
 the Truth of what he Teaches. 
 And it is not to be fuppos'd 
 that God wou'd have fent His 
 Son to Suffer fo Cruel a Death 
 when ther was no Neceffity 
 at all for it ! This I call'd the 
 Mill'Stone of Socinianifin, and 
 Infifted upon it in my L *ft Di* 
 alogue. But you take no Notice 
 of it. 
 
 You throw away a 
 great deal of your Wit in your 
 p. 17- and 1 8. in talking of the 
 Perfons of God as of the Perfons 
 of Men (which as I have be- 
 fore told you, you your felf 
 Condemn, and Pretend not to 
 Argue at this Rate) you infer 
 Ridiculous Confequences from 
 one Perfon paying a Debt to 
 Another, and yet being the'fame 
 Per.fon himfelf. This is Meafu- 
 ring the Nature of God by our 
 own. Which you Confcfs to be 
 a Palfe and very Fallacious way 
 of Re'afoning. Befides Mif-ftatiug 
 the Queftion, as if we AffirmM 
 feverai Perfpfu to be the fame 
 Perfon, which we do not, and 
 I have told you of it Suffici- 
 ently before, in my Refly to 
 your Vindication. And that ther 
 was no Abfurdity you wou'd 
 Infer from the Dodrine of the. 
 Trinity but what arofe from 
 Concluding of the Nature of 
 
 God,
 
 Cod by the Nature of Man^ head, by the three feveral and 
 
 which your felf Confefs not piftind Faculties in one and the 
 
 to be Juft, yet you have no . p- fame Soul. Now not to Soar 
 
 ther Argument. fo High as the Unfathomable 
 
 Ther are Similitudes and Pa- tfature of the Deity, fuppofe 
 
 rdlds from one Nature to ano- you fhou'd Explain the Opera- 
 
 ther, whence feveral Inferences tions of the Faculties of the Soul 
 
 may be drawn, as 'twixt Body in this way of a Debt of Mo.- 
 
 and Soidy of which I have fpoke ney betwixt Man and Man, and 
 
 largely before: But if we will fay how the Memory is Indebted 
 
 Run the Matter to an Abfolute to the Underftanding for ail it 
 
 Equality, and make them An- has, becaufe it can Remember 
 
 fwer in Every thing, we lhall nothing but what is Prefented 
 
 fall into Manifold Contradict- to it by the Vnderftanding -, 
 
 ons, as that the Body may be And then again, how it Pays 
 
 in feveral Places at once, be- this whole Debt to the Vnder- 
 
 caufe it is faid of the Soul, that ftanding, by Preferving the fame 
 
 it is All in All and All in E- Objetts for the Vnderftanding to 
 
 very Part of the Body at the Work upon, without which it 
 
 fame time. cou'd Vnderftand Nothing ; And 
 
 Such a purfuing of Parallels how the Vnderftanding may be 
 
 ther is in your Comparing the faid thus to Enable "the Me- 
 
 Satisfattion made to God for Sin, mory to Pay the Debt, and fl> 
 
 with one Man's paying Money in EfFeft it is Paying it felf, 
 
 to another, or a Mans being, and making Satisfaction to it felf. 
 
 faid to Satisfy himfelf, by En- Then again, how the Will is 
 
 abiing another to make the Sa- Indebted to the other two Fa- 
 
 tisfa&lon. This is Arguing S/r#?-" cutties, without which it cou'd 
 
 ly from the Perfons of Men to neither Love nor Hate, and 
 
 the Perfons of God, which you how it Pays them again the 
 
 own to ^>e Vnreafcnable, yet full Rccompence, by Adding De- 
 
 Perfovs of Men aad of God, fo find many Inconfftencics and 
 
 as to Anfwer ini every Point 1 furdities in this way of 
 
 And without this fuppos'd, all ing , And can you think then 
 
 you have faid comes to Nothing, that fuch a Mctaphore can be 
 
 Let me fliew you an inftaace Carry'd on to the Full in Relati- 
 
 nearer hand, 1 gave you an on totheIncomprehenfible6W/ 
 
 Image- of the Perfons in the God- Tho' ther may be found fome 
 
 Likcneff
 
 (7) 
 
 and Refemblance in ma- 
 ny Particulars, and ofUfe to Us 
 by way of Iltvftration, betVvixt 
 a Debt to God and to Man, 
 Of Money and of Sin. But to 
 Argue Strittly, as you do, and 
 think to make the Parallel Square 
 perfedly in every Particular, 
 1 hope I need not Ufe Argu- 
 ments to Convince you of the 
 Weaknefs and Fallacy in this way 
 of Reafoning. 
 
 "You.accufe me of making 
 Ufe of Pardlels, yet you Ar- 
 gue from Nothing elfe. I draw 
 Parallels from Man to God ; But 
 you bring down God to Man. 
 I ufe them only for Jlluft ration, 
 you bring them into Solid Ar- 
 gument. I own all Parallels as 
 to God to be Weak, and at an 
 Infinite Diftance from His Na- 
 ture j you will have them Ex- 
 a& and the Same, and draw 
 up your Accounts with God by 
 way of Creditor and Debtor and 
 Ballance ! * And make Jvftice as 
 Precarious in God as it is in 
 Man! It is not Neceffary to 
 Man that he be **# in his 
 Jttftice, thence you Infer that it 
 is not Neceffary in God! A 
 Man may Depart from his Jttft 
 Right in a Debt, therefore you 
 think that God may as Eafily 
 Difancc with the Inherent Ju- 
 ftice and Re&itude of His Na- 
 ture ^ and His Abhorrence of S/'w/ 
 Reparation may be made to a 
 .A/i* for a frW, by giving 
 him Money Equivalent to his 
 jLofs: Wou'd it not be Grofs 
 
 to Conceive thus oiGod? And 
 what Equivalent can we give to 
 Infinite Juftice Offended ? Is ther 
 a Satisfaction or Penalty due to the 
 leaft Injuftice to jM<a?, and is ther 
 none Due to Juftice it felf ? Or is 
 it Vnjufl in God to Require that 
 Satisfaction or Inflid that Penalty 
 which is ^w/? with 4/<.? 
 
 Sir, that Exad Parallel your 
 Argument requires betwixt the 
 Jvftice of 6W and of Matt, will 
 fail you in many Points. Let 
 me Name One. What we call 
 the Attributes of God are oniy 
 the different Manner whereby 
 we Apprehend Him. Thus we 
 make many Attributes, as His 
 Juftice, His Wifdom, His Mercy, 
 &c. But thefe are all One in 
 Him (tho' we cannot Compre- 
 hend it) who is one Simple and 
 Vn-Comfounded Nature. Upon 
 which when we Look by that 
 Image of it in our felves, we 
 cannot Conceive of thefe At- 
 tributes but as of Different, nay 7 
 Sometimes even Contrary things, 
 becaufe they are fo with Us. 
 For example, Juftice and Mercy 
 are Oppofoes with Us. We may 
 Sometimes Exercifc our Juftice, 
 and Sometimes our Mercy, but 
 never both together in the lame 
 Ad, becaufe they are Incompa- 
 tible. If I Forgive, it is Mercy ; 
 If I Exad the Rigor, it is Ju- 
 ftice. And I cannot do Both, 
 at the fame Time, and in Re- 
 lation to the fame Debt. I 
 cannot both Forgive and Exaft 
 
 it.
 
 (8) 
 
 it. If I exercife my Mercy, it 
 Bars out my Juftice , and if I 
 execute my Juftice, it Excludes 
 my Mercy. But it is not fo in 
 God. He is all Juftice, and 
 like wife all Mercy. And is not 
 Compounded of thefe, but is Each 
 in the Abftraft. They are not 
 Contrary in Him, tho' they are 
 with Vs. And we cannot Ex- 
 plain thefe things, nor Argue 
 Strittly from the One to the O- 
 ther, from the Jufiict in J/i/z, 
 to the Jttftice of GW, or to 
 that Juftice which is G0^. But 
 we may Admire and Adore it 
 in that Wonderful Inftance of 
 it in the Oeconomy of our J?e- 
 demptijon by Chritt, wherein the 
 Jtjftice of GW is ihew'd to be 
 Infinite, by the Infinite Satisfatti- 
 on that is made to it: And 
 His Wifdom is infinite in Con- 
 triving fuch a Satisfaction : And 
 His Goodnefs Equally Infinite 
 in Affording it to Us. This 
 is the Great Miflery of 6W 
 Mam'feft in the B*/fc, which the 
 Angels defire to Look into ; But 
 you Lewdly Blafpheme, p. 1 1 . 
 at the end, and p. 12. and talk 
 of Complementing the Father, and 
 make Sport with the other Per- 
 fons of the Holy Trinity, by 
 Meafuring them after the Man- 
 ner of Men : And think your 
 felf very Wife and Witty upon 
 
 this occafion ! 
 
 , T .V,>>A vp - . 
 
 ..... 
 
 (VII.) But in your Explana- 
 tion you deftroy all difference 
 
 betwixt Juftice and Mercy, e- 
 ven as it is Underftood among 
 Men. In your p. 4. you fay 
 to me. 
 
 " You ask, p. 5. Do's Juftics 
 u require full Satisfaction ? And 
 u are fo Difingenuous as to make 
 " your Socinian Anfwer, Tes- 7 
 " whea no Socinian will ever 
 " fay it in the Seiife your Que- 
 " ftion intends, but on the 
 " Contrary they wou'd always 
 tl anfwer, No. 
 
 You fay to me again in your 
 p. 5. 
 
 " You ask p. 4. If fargivnefs 
 " without Satisfaction be call'd 
 tc Juftice ? And you make your 
 " Socinian anfwer, No ; when he 
 " wou'd fay, r, if he might 
 " fpeak for himfelf : But he is 
 " in your hands, and you make 
 " him fpeak what you wou'd 
 " have him, to make you Sport . 
 
 Now, Sir, I profefs to you 
 1 meant no Sfort in the Cafe. 
 Nor did I think I did the So- 
 cinian any Wrong to make 
 him Anfwer as I did. For it 
 is the fame Anfwer I wou'd 
 have given my felf to thefe 
 Oueftions, and 1 thought it Im- 
 poflible for any body to give 
 any other Anfwer* I'mfure if I 
 had made him Anfwer as you 
 have done for him, I fhou'd 
 have thought I had done him 
 a great Injury, and made him 
 ipeak contrary to the Senfe of 
 all Mankind ! For I never heard 
 Man before you fay, But that 
 
 to
 
 (9 ) 
 
 to Forgive was an Aft of Mer- 
 cy, and not of Juflice ; and that 
 to Exaft the Vtmoft was the 
 Rigor of Jufice, and not Mer- 
 cy. For otherwife this mull 
 Confound all the Notions that 
 ever I had (or I believe any 
 body elfe) of Juflice and Mer- 
 cy. 
 
 Therefore I come to the Rea- 
 fon you give for this fo feem- 
 ingly Stravge a Pofition, Which 
 follows your Affertion in p. 5. 
 the laft Paragraph, where you 
 fay, 
 
 "I fay then, that free Par- 
 " don is Juftice, as our Alms 
 " is call'd Righteoufnefs in Scri- 
 <c pture^ for this Reafon, a- 
 " mong others, fay fome, be- 
 " caufe they muft be given of 
 " fuch things as we have a 
 <c Right to: So GW's pardon- 
 ct ing Mercy is Righteoufnefs ^ as 
 " much as his Bounty is, as be- 
 " ing the Exercife of his Jufl 
 u Right. Punifiing is one Aft 
 tc of Juflice, and Pardoning an- 
 " other} either way God ufes 
 " his own Right with Equal 
 " Juflice. 
 
 I own my felf at a lofs to 
 Anfwcr this, for I confefs I 
 do not Underftand it. And you 
 your felf, Sir, feem fomewhat 
 PerfUx'd, and fet it down with 
 Fear and Caution, you give this 
 as a Reafon, among others, as 
 if "the Strefs did not lye here, 
 and put it with a Say Some, 
 that it may not appear to be 
 
 
 
 your own. Then you make a 
 Difference betwixt the Mercy 
 of Cod and His Bounty, and 
 fay, That GW's pardoning Mer 
 cy is Righteoufnefs, at much as 
 his Bounty is. Which will be 
 eafily Granted you, bccaufe His 
 Mercy is His Bounty to Us. 
 But what you Mean "by this is^ 
 not Eafy to Guefs. You Jum- 
 ble things together in an Odd 
 way. Alms is Rights oufnefs^ be- 
 caufe they are given of fuch 
 things as we have a Right to 
 And Rightetntfnefs is Juflice, be- 
 caufe it is Jutt to do what I 
 have a Right to do, for Juft 
 is Right. And thus you fay, 
 That Pardoning (as well -as Pa- 
 nijhing) is an Aft of Jttflice^ 
 for none can Pardon but he who 
 
 has a Right to Pardon And 
 
 fo Jiiftice and Mercy are the 
 fame thing! 
 
 Sir, this is very Extraordina- 
 ry! But I find that this Jingle 
 or Punning upon, the Word Right 
 do's not fatisfy your felf, and 
 you foon Forget it, for at the 
 End of your p. 13. fpeaking 
 of the Blood of Atonement Sprin- 
 kled on the Mercy-Seat, you 
 add, 'This plainly taught, .that 
 ''twas by an Application to Mercy 
 from Juflice. But why to Mer- 
 cy from Jttflice, if Juflice and 
 Mercy are the Same? For if 
 Pardoning be Juflice becaufe it 
 is Right, then Punijhing is Mer- 
 cy for the fame Reafon ! Thus 
 You, Sir, have brought a New 
 
 Language
 
 f 10 ) 
 
 cudge into the World, be- Underftand it as fpoken of 
 
 cauft Plain and Eafy fpeaking is the fame Perfon, that Chrift 
 
 Natural to the Socinians ! was Satisfy'd with his own 
 
 Travel. I take it as meant of 
 
 (VIILJ You make your felf Two Perfons, that God was Sa- 
 
 Merry with me, p. 3. for find- tisfy'4 with the Travel of Chrift. 
 
 ing the Word Satisfaction in And the Context is wholly on 
 
 that Text Ifai. liii. iv. He jhall my Side. See the Verfe be- 
 
 fee of the Travel of his Soul, and fore , It pleafed the Lord t 
 
 jhall be Satisfied. And you fay bruife him y he hath put him to 
 
 it means only a Complacence or Grief: When They jhalt make his 
 
 Complacential Delight. Well, Sir, Soul an Offering for Sin And 
 
 and where is the great Difference the plcafure of the Lord fltall 
 
 here ? For wnen a Debt is Pro/per in his hand. He /hall 
 
 pay'd to a Man, and he is ful- fee of the Travel of his Sonl^ 
 
 ly Satisfy d^ may he not be faid and jhall be Satisfied. Here the 
 
 to have a Comphcential Delight He and the He fpoken of 
 
 in this, that Juftice is FulfitTd throughout are plainly Two 
 
 r Satisfy'd ? And may we not Perfons, and you wou'd have 
 
 fay, that God is Pleaid or has them One in the laft Sentence 
 
 a Complacency whea Juftict is only. I will not Return your 
 
 done? Are not fuch Expreffi- Complement of Ridiculous, but 
 
 ons frequent in Scripture? I may lay that yours is no 
 
 But you fay, This was fpo- Happy Interpretation, it is not 
 
 fcen of the Complacentiai Delight Quite fb Eafy as Mine. But 
 
 which the Servant oj Cod (that you have Anfwer'd nothing, to 
 
 is, Chrift) fjould have in the what I have faid upon this 
 
 Jffiie of his Undertaking. And Text in my Sixth Dialogue^ p. 
 
 you fay, / am not quite fo Ha$- 35> which Exprefly Coafutes 
 
 py AS Ridiculous in pretending this Expofition of Yours. 
 
 to^ftnd any Satisfaction to God 
 
 hefe. Well then, I wift fct ("IX.) Having thus throwa 
 
 down the Text according to off the Word Satisfaction as Vn~ 
 
 Your Senfe of it and mine, Scriptural-, by your Ingenious 
 
 and fee which is the nioft Hap- turn of this Text, you come 
 
 ty or Ridiculous. Your Senfe is next to Account for thofe Terms 
 
 this, Chri& Jkatt fee of the Tra~ which you own to be Scriptu- 
 
 vtl of Cljri&s Soul) and jhall be r*/,. and which indeed mean the 
 
 Satisfy'd. Mine is, That Cod fame thing, and 1 love not 'to 
 
 fee of the Travel of C/.n/Fs Difpute with you about Words. 
 
 , and Jhall be Satisjyd* You And you feem to Allow that 
 
 they
 
 (it) 
 
 they do mean the fame thing, penfat.ion as Vnfcriftural as Sa- 
 for you fay in the next Words, tisfattion, and means the fame 
 p. 3. thing?) was not Equivalent to 
 
 " Neither the Unfcriptural the Sins of Men, and Stridiy 
 tc Term Satisfaction, nor the Meritorious of their Pardon, nor 
 te Scriptural Terms Redemption, were his Sufferings Infinite i 
 tc Propitiation, Atonement, Sacri- Value. And you own the Rea- 
 c ^ fees, &c.are the Matters of this fbn why you fay. this to be, 
 ce Difpute. The Unitarians can That otherwife it wou'd Infer 
 " allow all thefe, and the ve- his Divinity. So that your firit 
 " ry Racovian Catechifm expref- Error in Denying his Divinity, 
 cc ly allows Jefus Chrift to be makes you Stick out in this of 
 *' our Expiatory Sacrifice, Chap, the Sat is f aft ion. And .you wou'd 
 tc 8, and that in the f?.me Senfe Allow of any Satisfaction which 
 " as, nay, in a fuller than the wou'd not infer his Divinity. 
 * c Sacrifices under the Law were Therefore you Plead for a Sa- 
 tisfaction that is Infufficitnt, and 
 make your Pretence, that it 
 wou'd be more for the 
 
 <c facts'. So that they have faid 
 
 <c what is falfe, who tell the 
 
 tc World, that the Socinians in 
 
 ct general deny Chrift dy'd a and Gratuitous Mercy of God. 
 
 " Proper Sacrifice for Sin : Much Of which I have fpoke alrea- 
 
 " Jefs do the Arian Unitarians dy. 
 
 *' decline the Expreffion. Nor 
 mail the Pharfe of Noslro 
 
 Bat why fhou'd Ckrift under- 
 take to make a Satisfaction or 
 
 ** loco or his Dying in Our Compenfation for Sin, if he cou'd 
 
 tc Stead, make any Difference; not make one that was Svf- 
 
 te fb that the Antinomian Senfe ficient, and Meritorious or De- 
 
 4C of his Suftaining our Legal ferving the Pardon of Sin ? And 
 
 " Per [on, be excluded. The Ra- how is he our Atonement, if he 
 
 ** covian Catechifm afTerts it, cou'd not Atone for Sin ? 
 " that Chrilt dy'd, as Vittima. 
 
 " Succedama.Aod I think he that (X.) You Refolve all tms , 
 
 " Suffers with a Defign to pre- p. 4. into his Interceffion Tor 
 
 a vent our Suffering (which is the Pardon of our Sin, not & 
 
 " Granted) truly Suffers incur a thing Strictly Merited, 
 
 Sought of the Divine Favour and 
 Mercy. 
 
 But what need then was 
 
 , ,, ther for his Suffering? This be- 
 
 That this Compen/ation which longs not to the Office of an /- 
 Chrift made (and is not Cm.- tercejjbr. A Man may Intercede for 
 
 B i another 
 
 Stead. 
 
 Here one wou'd think we 
 were perfedly Agreed. Buc 
 you Except afterwards and fay, 
 
 - i i .*- /"* i " i
 
 (It) 
 
 another, without Dying for 
 him. 
 
 You fay for that, That his 
 Sufferings were the Tryai of 
 his Vertves^ viz. Of his Pati- 
 ence, Humility^ Submtflion towards 
 God) and tranfcendent Charity to, 
 Men. 
 
 But Gad knew all this Al- 
 ready. And Cfcr//? was as Dear 
 to Him before as after his 
 Sufferings. Wou'd God then 
 put him to fuch Sufferings and 
 Cruel Death) becaufe He knew 
 he wou'd Bear them Patient- 
 ly! 
 
 This is the Sbcinian account 
 of the Sufferings of Christ ! And 
 will in no ways Anfwer ChrWs 
 being our Atonement, Propitia- 
 tion, and Sacrifice. Muft an In- 
 terceffor be Sacrificed? But Christ 
 do's Intercede for Us, on Ac^ 
 count of the Sacrifice of ' Himfelf 
 which He Offer'd to God for Us, 
 and in Vertue of that Sacrifice He 
 is our Jnterceffor. He was an 
 Interceffor for Us before He 
 Zyrf, but not fo as fmce, elfe 
 He needed not have Dy>d. 
 But He was not our Propitia- 
 tion and Sacrifice before. And 
 how did He Suffer in our Stead 
 (which you Confefs)if He Dy'd 
 only to Approve His own Ver- 
 tues, as you fay ? 
 
 And you lay no Strefs up- 
 on His Death. Yon fay ill the 
 feme p. 4. That we are brought 
 f turn from our Sins to 6W, 
 fr Chrifc. But how ? YOB Exr 
 
 plain it, by hi* Law and Exam" 
 pie. But here is not a Word 
 of our Sins being Purged by 
 his Death) by the Blood of his 
 Crofs, as the Scripture expref- 
 feth it Col. i. 20. That is no 
 Part of the Socinian Creed. You 
 have told Us in what Senfc 
 you can Ufe the Words, Re- 
 demption , Propitiation , Sacrifice , 
 &c. without any Relation to 
 his Sufferings or Death. You 
 fay He became all thefe things 
 to Us, by being an Example 
 of Good Life to Us, and gi- 
 ving Us a good Law, and, In- 
 terceding for Us. 
 
 (XI.) But it is faid, That 
 roithout Shedding of Blood ther is 
 no Remiflion. Heb. ix. 22. You 
 fay, That Means no more than 
 Interccjfion ! It js faid, That God 
 made Christ t-o be Sin for Us. 
 2 Cor. v. 21. You lay, He 
 was not made Sin for Us, nor 
 was our Sin Imputed to Him! 
 It is faid, He bore our Sins in 
 his own Body on the Tree. And' 
 by his Strifes- roe are healed. I 
 Pet. ii. 24. That is, fay you, 
 by his Interceffion! When was 
 Interceffion call'd Stripes before ? 
 Reconciled to God by the Death 
 of his Son. Rom. v. 10. Here 
 Intercession is Death too ! Thefe 
 are the Eafy Expofitions of the 
 Socinians! 
 
 In my Sixth Dialogue , Se&. 
 XXII. N. 7. p. 33. 1 exempli- 
 fy'd this hi-the Typet tfeat went? 
 
 before.
 
 Before of Christ, as the High- 
 Priest bearing the Iniquity of 
 the Congregation upon him to 
 make Atonement for them. Lev. 
 vi. 26. x. 17. To which I might 
 have added that the Sins of 
 all the People were to be Con- 
 feffed over the Scape-Goat, on 
 the Great Day of Expiation-, 
 and Put upon his Head, to 
 Bear them away to a Land not 
 Inhabited Lev. xvi. 21. &c. And 
 the Reafon given for the Pro- 
 hibition of Eating Blood, becaufe 
 it is the Blood that maketh Atone- 
 ment for the Seul. Lev. xvii. 
 ii. Thefe as Types of Christ, 
 and Christ eonfider'd as Fulfil- 
 ling them by Bearing our Sins, 
 and making Atonement for them 
 in fhedding his Blood for Us, 
 cannot be put off with His 
 being only an Example of Ho- 
 ly Living, or a Giver of good 
 L*ws, or even by being barely 
 an Interceflor for ~Us. But of 
 all this you take no Notice. 
 
 And the Reafon I take to 
 be, That you cou'd not here 
 fo Eafily Play and Jingle with 
 a Word, and Screw it into what 
 Meaning you think fit. For 
 the Types of Christ Reprefent 
 Him as in a Picture. There 
 we fee Him fhedding His Blood 
 in the Sacrifices, and Bearing 
 the Sins of the People, and ma- 
 king Atonement for them in the 
 Perfon of the High-Priest, not 
 barely by making ht&reefjlon, 
 bt by. Carrying the Bk&d 
 
 of Expiation into the Holy of Ho- 
 lies, and Offering it there for 
 the Sins of the People. Which 
 Chrift fulfilled by Entering in- 
 to Heaven with His Own Blood, 
 and in Vertue of that to make 
 Intercejjion for Us. The Parallel 
 is largely Infilled upon in the 
 ix. and x. to the Hebrews. And 
 here your Criticifms upon this 
 or that Word will not do. There 
 is a whole Scene laid before 
 Us, and we Read Attions not 
 
 (XII.) You cannot here Tor- 
 ment a Text, as you do p. io 
 that of Act. iv. 27, 28. For of 
 a truth against thy Holy Child 
 Jefus, whom thon hast Anointed, 
 both Herod and Pontius Pilate, 
 with the Gentiles, and the People 
 of Ifr<&4 were gathered together, 
 for tff do whatsoever tky Hand 
 and thy Counfel determined be- 
 fore to be done. Inflead of which 
 you wou'd have it Read thus, 
 Both Herod and Pontius Pilate 
 were gathered together against thy 
 Holy Child Jejus, whom thou 
 hast Anointed to do what thy 
 Hand and Counfel determined. 
 And what was that ? You fend 
 Us to know it to Aft. x, 38. 
 where it is faid, that Chrift 
 went about doing Good. And this 
 is what you fay was Deter- 
 mined in this Texty ani not 
 that He Ihou'd be put to Death. 
 Becaufe this wou'd lay too 
 much Strefs. upofr His Death, 
 
 ef
 
 ( '4 ) 
 
 of which you make fo Little, Stcnfce of Chrift Himfelf v. 23. 
 
 and of which you fay in this -tf. And this Teftament could 
 
 fame p*f*, Col. i. was made, to be ot no Force while Christ did 
 
 look like an Accidental tiring. Live^ nor could take Effed till 
 
 And indeed it was no ways after his Death, v. 17. He was, 
 
 Neceflary, according to your The Lamb /lain from the Founda- 
 
 Scheme of Chriftiamty. For you tion of the World. Rev. xiii. 8. 
 
 are not of his Mind who faid, Did this look like an Acciden- 
 
 7 hat it behoved Christ to Suffer, tal thing ? This is what the 
 
 Luk. xxiv. 46. Ther was no Hand and Counfei 6f God de- 
 
 Need of it at all for his be- ter mined he fore to be done. Aft. 
 
 ing an Example of Holy life, iv. 28. And to Avoid which 
 
 or a Teacher, or an Interceffor* you have, I lay not Mifintcr- 
 
 But for being a Sacrifice, and preted or Wrefted this Text, but 
 
 Ranfome, a Propitiation, and A- you have made a quite New 
 
 tonement , ther was abfblute Text out of it. You have ta- 
 
 Neceffity for it, and it Beho- ken a Sentence out of ver. 27. 
 
 ved him to Suffer, if he wou'd and put it to wr. 28. and Ap* 
 
 Redeem Us with his Blood; ply it to a New and quite 
 
 without Shedding of which we Different Svbjctl from the whole 
 
 are told ther cou'd be no Re- Con-Text, which begins ver. 23. 
 
 miffion, and that his Death muft with the fevere Tbreatning gi- 
 
 be of Neceffity. Chrift fold t This ven to the Avoftles, thence goes 
 
 is the New Teftament in my Blood, to the Persecution of Chrift 
 
 Luk. xxii. 20. And the Apoftle Himfelf, and begins with the 
 
 faid, where a Teftament is, there Prophejy of it in the Second 
 
 alfo of Neceffity be the Death Pfalm, how the Rulers and the 
 
 of the Teftator. Heb. ix. 16. People fhould Confpire againft 
 
 Whereupon the frit Teftament Chrift there called the Anointed 
 
 (which was but in Type) was of God: Then mews how this 
 
 not Dedkated without Blood, was Fulfilled in the Rulers, 
 
 v. 18. For without Shedding of &c. Confpiriug againft this 
 
 Blood ther if no Remiflion. v. 22. fame Anointed, to Perform whaC 
 
 It was therefore Neceflary that God had before Determined and 
 
 the Patterns of things in the He a- Prophesied, mould be done by 
 
 vens fiwld bt Purified with thefe thefe wicked Rulers, &c. But 
 
 (that is, the Typical Blood of you fay, this does not Relate 
 
 the Old Teftament) but the J-fea- to the Rulers, but to Christ, 
 
 venly things themfelves (that is, who was Anointed to do Good. 
 
 the New Teftament) with better Tho' ther is not a Word in 
 
 Sacrifices then thefe, that is, the the whole Cm-Text pf what 
 
 Cbrift
 
 Chrift did, "but of what the 
 Ruler s, &c. did. Well, it muft 
 be own'd, That the Socinians 
 Interpret Scripture the moft 
 Naturally of any ! 
 
 But you give a Reafon, for, 
 fay you , Cod did not De- 
 termine them (the Rulers, &c.) 
 to Murder Chrift. This betrays 
 the Weaknefs of your Philo- 
 fofhy as well as your Theology. 
 You cannot Diftinguifh betwixt 
 God's difpofing of Events , and 
 Approving of the Aftions. God 
 faid to David, I mil take thy 
 Wives before thine Eyes^ and give 
 them unto thy Neighbour, ii Sam. 
 xii. 1 1 . Did God therefore Ap- 
 frove of Abfalenfs going in to 
 his Father'* Wives? Do's not 
 God often make Ufe of the 
 Wickednefs of Men, to bring to 
 pafs the Events which He has 
 Determined ? God did Determine 
 to Deliver Chrift into the 
 hands of the Jews^ and He 
 knew their Wickednefi, that they 
 wou'd Crucifie him. And thus 
 He accomplifhed His all- wife 
 Counfel. As St. Peter faid to 
 them, Aft. ii. 23. Him (Chrift) 
 being Dlivered by the Determi- 
 nate Counfel and Fort knowlege of 
 God, ye have taken ^ and by Wick- 
 ed hands have Crucified and Slain. 
 And did they not do in this 
 what God had before Deter- 
 mined fhould be done? Is not 
 this the very fame with that 
 other Text Chap. iv. 28 which 
 we are upon.? And you may 
 
 Turn the One as well as the 
 Other not to Relate to the Wick- 
 ed Rulers^ &c. but to the Good 
 things that Chrift did, for Chrift 
 iignifies Anointed^ fo He is 
 called Anointed in both Texts, 
 which many Equally afford Rox>m 
 for your Sharp Critifcim, to 
 turn one Word in the Text in- 
 to a quite Different Meaning 
 from all the Reft 1 This is Eajy 
 
 and Smooth ! Is it not ? 
 
 
 
 (XIII.) But, Sir, your Labour 
 and Grief is yet behind. For 
 in the fame p. 10. You purfue 
 this Matter till you come to 
 that Crabbed Text for Socinians^ 
 of Chrift being made a Curfe 
 for Us. Gal. iii. 13. And here 
 you take true Pains again- For 
 this will by no Means Agree 
 with Limiting the Office of 
 Chrift to that only of an /- 
 tercejjor. For do's Interceding 
 make one a Curfe? Therfore 
 you Prove at Large that Chrift 
 was not Accurfed to God. No 
 furely, for He was always His 
 Well-Beloved. So you might have 
 fav'd all that Pains. Well then v 
 how do you Underftand this 
 Text? You fay, The Jews m*de 
 him a Curfe. I fuppofe you 
 Mean that they only Ibaught 
 him fo. And did that make 
 him a Curfe f Then Evil Meil 
 may make Good Men Accurfed 
 when they Pleafe ! But the 
 Text gives a Reafon for His 
 being made a Gtrfe, for it is
 
 Written Cur fed is every we that for the Sift of the Tranfgrtftr? 
 Hangeth on a Tree. Was this. And your Critkifm upon ver. 
 only what the Jews or any^ o-, 11. Of which I have fpokc 
 ther Thought ? Is it not a Curfe before, Whereby you Conftrue, 
 in it felf to be Hanged on a He fljall fee of the Travel of hii 
 Tree ? It is a Cvrfe of Punijh- Soul, to be meant of the fame 
 mem-, not always of Guilt, feat Per/on, will not do here, Un- 
 ther was Gnilt here too, not lefs you will Read, Thou [halt 
 of CbriSt Himfelf, but the Guilt make kis y to be / (hall make 
 of our Sins which He had ta- Mine. And this is in ver. 10. 
 ken upon Him, as it is Writ- And the fame Sentence with 
 ten, The Lord hath laid on Him the Other in ver. 1 1 . and 
 the Iniquity of Vs att. Ifai. Hii. fpeaking of the fame Perfons, 
 6. Or as our Margin Reads it, yet you call'd me not fo Happy 
 The Lord hath made the Iniqui- as Ridiculous^ in not Allow- 
 ties ef Vs all to meet on Him. ing that ther was but One and 
 And ver. 5. He was wounded the felf fame Per fan here fpoke 
 for our TranfgreflionSi He w*s of. 
 
 Bruifed for our Iniquities, the But Chri& did not only Free- 
 Chaftifement of our Peace was up- ly Ofer Himfelf, but God did 
 on Him, and -with His Stripes alfb make his Soul an "Offering 
 We are Healed. And ver. IO. for Sin, and Laid our Iniquities 
 Thou fait make His Soul an upon Him, that they might 
 Offering for Sin. And again, He not be Imputed unto Us. It 
 bare the Sin of Many. It is was the Work of God, and of 
 added, and He made Interceflion Christ too> as it is faid, God 
 for the Tranfgreffors. And his hath Reconciled Vs to Himfelf 
 Suffering for them was a good by Jefus Christ, to wit, that Gvd 
 Ground of his making Inter- was in Christ, reconciling the 
 ceffion for them. But bare In- World nnt Himfelf^ not Imputing 
 terceffion without Suffering will their Trefpaffes unto them, ii 
 thefe not fill up the Meaning of Cor. v. 18, 19. And thus it is 
 thcfe Scriptures^ For do's God lay that God made Christ an O/- 
 the Iniquity of the Tranfgreflor firing^ and 5, and a Cttrje for 
 upon the Intercejfir? Do's a Us. 
 
 Man who Intercedes for aJio- And here I think the Caufe 
 -ther, make his Soul an Offering of Secinianifm upon this Point 
 for him? But it is faid Thou to be Determined. And the 
 fjalt make his Soul an Offering^ Sorry Salvo you, Sir, have for 
 &c. Do's God make the Soul all this being only, That the 
 of the Inttrcejfor an Offering Jews thought Christ to be a 
 
 Curfe,
 
 (1?) 
 
 Curfe, will make it fo Appear tice of God's Severity in this 
 to "Every body. For ther is fair. His Mercy indeed was 
 nothing faid nor Imply'd of Great to Sinners in fending 
 what the Jews thought, but of Chrift to Redeem them, this you 
 what Cod did. It was GW who Enlarge upon. But you wou'd 
 made the Soul of Chrift an Of- not have it thought that Chrift 
 fering for Sin. It was God underwent any Severity to Re- 
 who made Him to be Sin for deem Men. He did Undergo 
 Us, that we might be made the great . Severities. What was it 
 Righteovfnefs of God in Him. for ? You fay (as I Quoted it 
 Which is the Conclnfion drawn before) It was only to Try 
 irom what I juft now Quoted whether he cou'd Bear them 
 of GW's reconciling Vs to Him- Patiently^ tho' God knew that 
 felf by Jefus Chrift^ and not he both Coud and Wou'd.- So 
 Imputing our Treftaffcs unto Us. here was an Experiment try'd 
 Why? Becaufe He hath made tonoPurpofe, but to the Ter- 
 Him to be Sin for Us, &c. ii. rible 4$Kfring an Innocent Pe^,- 
 Cor. v. 21. And the fame is fon! And to Lay the Mop? 
 ithe Meaning of Gal. iii. 13. upon him becaufe he was Wil* 
 Chrift hath Redeemed Vs from ling to Bear ! 
 the Curfe of the Lam, being made But, Sir, When God tells the 
 * Curfe for Vs. Is ther any Reafbn why C/;m? was thus 
 thing faid here of what the Grievoufly Ajjlitted, and Poured 
 Jews thought ? Kay it is Cer- out his Soul unto Death, and that 
 tain that the Jews neither it was for our Sins, for the 
 Thought nor .Believed any of Tranjgreffion of my People was 
 
 thefe things. For if they had, he Striken All we 
 
 they muft hav been Converted, like Sheep have gone //' LIIL 
 as all of them were who did aftray, we have turn- 
 Believe it. And till the Sod- ed every one to his awn way, and 
 mans come to Believe it, they the Lord hath Laid on Him the 
 are not Chrift ians. Iniquity of V-s all; Do's not 
 
 this ihew God's high Difplea- 
 
 (XIV.) But to fave Chrift fure againft Sin, and that this 
 from being a Curfe , you was the Caufe of His fending 
 will not Allow that GOD's Chrift to .Suffer for our Sins? 
 Difpleafure or Wrath againft Sin For Christ alfo hath once Suffered 
 was fhewn at .all in His fend- for Sins, the Just for the Vnjuft-. 
 ing Chrift into the. World, i Pep. ., iii. 18, Having wade 
 You fay, p. 2i, We are not fo Peace through the Blood of his 
 witch as once called to take NO- Crojs. Col. i. 20. Juftiff4 ty 
 
 C hie
 
 his Blood. Rom. v. 9. The places 
 of Scripture are Infinite which 
 Attribute our Redemption frpm 
 our Sins to the Sufferings, the 
 Blood and the Death ofchrifi^ 
 as an Atonement^ a Sacrifice, a 
 Propitiation for them. Reconciled 
 to God by the Death of his 
 St By whom now we have 
 Received the Atonement. Rom. v. 
 10, n. hrift our Paffover is 
 Sacrifced for Vs. i Cor. v. 7. 
 when He had by Himfelf Purged 
 CUT Sins. Heb. i. 3. whom God 
 bath fet firth t* be a Propitiati- 
 o, through Faith in his Blood 
 For the Remiflion */ Sins. Rom. 
 fii. 25. God Jent his Son to be the 
 Propitiation for our Sins, i Joh. 
 iv. 10. Tou being Dead in your 
 Sins ...... hafh he Quickened, -- 
 
 having forgiven you all Trefpajfes> 
 blotting out the hand-Writing -- v 
 And took it out of the way, Nat- 
 l/iff it to his Crofs. Col. ii. 14. 
 T* who ifere fometimes far off r 
 are made Nigh by the Blood of 
 Cbrif* Eph. ii. 13. Ton that 
 were fometime Alienated -- Tet 
 0n? hath he Reconcile d^ in the 
 ody of his Fleft through Death. 
 Col. i. 22. So that our Sim 
 bad Alienated us from God. 
 And we were Reconciled by 
 Cbrijl, But how ? By his Blood* 
 by his Death in the Body of 
 his Flejb* All along through 
 *he New Tefiament the ftrefs is 
 laid here. But this the Socini- 
 nay have wholly laid alide r 
 as of ao ufe or Import ta our 
 
 Situation*, nothing at all to Us, 
 only to ihew his own Patience , 
 &c. which is all the Ufe they 
 can find of his Sufferings or 
 Death , to Recommended himfelf 
 to God (it feems they think 
 ther was need of that) but 
 without any Refpeft to Us. 
 So that they make him Suffer 
 for Himfelf, not for Vs* He 
 Suffered for Sin y fays the Scri- 
 pture } No, fay the Socinians, no 
 more than Job, only to mew 
 his Fortitude, and thereby make 
 Himfelf more Acceptable to 
 God I You will fay, it was to 
 make himfelf more Worthy to 
 be our Interceffor. But was he 
 not as Worthy before? Or did 
 not God Sufficiently Know him 
 before ? Affliftions are fent to 
 Us, either for the Punilhment 
 of our Sinsj or to Amend Us 
 and make Us Setter. For which 
 of thefe Ends w.ere they fent 
 to Cfcr//?, or what other that 
 you can Name > beildes that 
 fenflefs one you have Nam'd 
 already, for a Trial only of 
 Skill! 
 
 You have totally forgot the 
 Office of Chrijl as a Priefa 
 which is not only to Intercede^ 
 but alfo to offer Gifts and Sacri- 
 fees, wherefore, as the Apojll* 
 fays, *>*>/ Necejfity that this Man 
 (Chrift) have fomtwhat alfo to 
 Offer. Heb. viii. 3. And this 
 was the Sacrifice of Himfelf \ by 
 which we are Sanftified? through 
 tl* Offering of the Body of Jefitf 
 
 Chrifa
 
 (tp) 
 
 ifa one* for /tit, Heb. x, to* 
 This is what you Defpife and 
 Deny. You Deny that he Of- 
 fired up his 0^, or tnat it 
 was any Sttrifct at all You 
 fay, it rather feems to be purely 
 Accident*^ but at molt, That 
 it was only to Approve his 
 own Patience^ Obedience , and 
 Humility, but not as any Steri* 
 Jfo for Us, or that we Receive 
 any Benefit by it, unlefs af an 
 Extmflf, that we alfo may be 
 Pattern in Suffering/. And fuch 
 an Example no doubt it is* 
 But that is not the frith in his 
 Blood which is made Keceflary 
 for our Stfortion* I pray God 
 you may think of it la Time. 
 
 When 1 iajTf That you X>e* 
 ny that Chrifi Was Hfly 5^ry 
 fa, I do not forget that you 
 ufe the Word, way * I have 
 Quoted you ilready, you owa 
 it p, 3, to be a /ptyir ^m 
 fife for Sin, tfld la ffw $u*d 
 too* But thes ia ExpJUifliflf 
 it, you Reduce it sll to 7/wr- 
 ^j/Jw oiy f or Mxtmfls, and 
 <&ite go of the Pr^r Notloa 
 of Stfrijke. as I have few* 
 ed* So' twit' It is sot your 
 
 / I reprd but the 
 Aad eh Hocinitn 
 
 chiefly ia this^ to 
 with 
 
 (XV.) it yo eomp 
 t a Popular Dicl/unttiffit* 
 by M^fsfiag tJ*g Jufti 
 of ^^3 by tfcsfe 
 
 ties in Men^ you ask whetht? 
 we are Bound to Forgive o* 
 then, more than God has Ifcr- 
 lfw Us? And Ho having 
 Received full Sttiifa&ien for our 
 Situ, confequently we eugltt 
 not to forgive unlefs full ** 
 f*ftion be made to Us. Theft 
 you bring in the Aord't Prayer, 
 and Pleafe your felf to ma He 
 the Notion of $ At it f Mm (o 
 God appear tttdtittfau* Yet net; 
 without force Cheek in your 
 own Mind of the f*B#j of 
 this Argument) for you Cos* 
 elude it thus, Wkttewr differ* 
 MM of Gircttmfianeet there m#y 
 k in the Methsd if GenF* fir* 
 giwwfi And Ours, it mnfl mf 
 T>e in *i*y thfng fhtt iubwns 
 tht t*tnr* effrn @ratnlms Ptr* 
 don, 
 
 Thus hnviflf (as yoa thlek) fe* 
 eur'd your Maifl Foiat, you 4f 
 ief SoUteitotti what b?om0i rf 
 thg Reft f For yotf ggBflyt but? 
 be feflfibie that f htr | t very 
 di^rent Methfd of ^frf's for- 
 givgflgff sad 0r/t Wte ^^ 
 feffires is Wholly lad Selty 
 epoa Hi owtt 
 tfierdbfe i 10 
 by fh Iiiher^ftt &*8ltvde 
 m% ow fl &Atwt Aad 
 lag XQffto i ffif ? eoaff 
 ffltfft lifef sf-tfeit ihitT 
 ^w b sol Hart 9f 
 by tay olhff, Of this J 
 " f lut ifflo 
 i 
 
 for M*n i the
 
 ( ao 
 
 and Standart of Juftice. So that mull not be made the Standart 
 
 Juftice in it felf is not Hurt of Juftice. 
 
 whether any Man be Juft or 
 
 not. But an Alteration of it in 
 
 God would Alter thevery Nature 
 
 of Juftice it felf. 
 
 And as all hjuftice is in Er- His Wifdom has found out a 
 ring from the Rule of the Ef- Method whereby His Juftice 
 fential Juftice, and muft be Re- 
 fer'd to it ; So ther is neither 
 Juftice nor Ifijufticefiri&ly fpeak- 
 ing, betwixt Man and Man. 
 
 But I have another Anfwer, 
 which is, That the Pardon of 
 Sinners is moft Free and Gra- 
 tuitous on the Part of God, tho' 
 
 may be Entirely 
 have Explained this 'before. 
 And therefore no Pattern of 
 Forgivenefs can be fo Great fo 
 
 For ther is no Sin againlt Man, Gratuitous, as the Forgivenefs of 
 but as it is a Sin againft God. God. As to that Point of the Sa- 
 Thercfore David faid, Againft tisfying His Juftice, we have no 
 Thee, Thee only have 1 Sinned* Pretence to it, nor is it Propos'd 
 Pfal. li. 4. And the Forgru?nefi as a Pattern jto Us. 
 of Man ought to be Grounded But now, Sir, fee how you 
 on this, That he has nothing will be Catch'd in tHe Snare 
 in Himfelf to which any Re- that you laid for others. For 
 fwation for an Injury Is Due, I have before told you that 
 for the Injury is to Juftice, that your Scheme of the Forgivenefs 
 is, to God, and for my Part of God is not Gratuitous^ be- 
 of it, as ther is nothing Due caufe feveral Conditions are Re- 
 to me, fo I ought to Refer it quir'd which are Difficult to 
 to Him that is Injured, that is Flefh and Blood. And more- 
 to God. And after our BleiTed over we are often feverely Pu' 
 Saviour's Example, when Re- nified, befides that fome Af- 
 viled not to Revile again, nor fli&ion^ Sicknefs and Death abide 
 Tbreaten) but to Commit my All. Now to Turn your Argu- 
 felf and- Refer my Caufe to ment, if we are tq Forgive o- 
 Him who Judgeth Righteously, thers (in your way) as God 
 If the Pra&ice of the World forgives Us, then cannot our 
 be Urged againft this, it may Forgivenefs be Free and Gratiu- 
 be Reply'd, that ther are too tow. And ther wall be Scope 
 many in the World who think for our Malice, to Infiift upon 
 'Themfelves the Meaflire of Ju- thofe we Forgive, all that God 
 fice, and think' 'every thing inrads upon Us, even Deatk it 
 Good and Evil as it is fo to felf But in my way the For- 
 Them. And ther are Infirmi- givenefs will be Compleat and 
 in. the Belt Mej), which Entire, as in the Oeconomy of 
 
 God.
 
 , 
 
 Cod for our ReAempion^ when that Condemned that fs 
 
 we were Enemies, and with- nounces Condemnation to Us for 
 
 out any Mentor Deferving what- our Sins? It is Chrifl who D;W 
 
 foever on our Part. The Mer- for our Sins, this was Under- 
 
 cy was Wholly owing to Him- going the Curfe of Sin, enter- 
 
 felf, and the G70ry is only His. ing into the Prlfon allotted for 
 
 And following this Example, Sin, making Himfelf the Debtor, 
 
 we ftiall not only be Willing as our Surety, (Heb. vii. 22.) 
 
 to Forgive , but to Dye for our yea Rather, who is Rlfen again, 
 
 Enemies. who has opened the Prlfon 
 
 Doors and Come out, to mew 
 
 (XVI) But, Sir, you go on that the whole Debt was Pay'd, 
 
 to Leflen the Efficacy of the and He cou'd no longer be 
 
 Death of Chrifl, and lay, p. 14. Detain'd there: And. to mew 
 
 That the Scripture is fo far from that this was no Illegal Efcape, 
 
 appropriating ChriJPs Atonement He Afcends into Heaven, tb 
 
 to his Death, that it gives more Appear before His Father the 
 
 Venue to his Intercejfion. For Creditor, who places Him on 
 
 proof of which you Quote Rom. His Right Hand, to mew His 
 
 viii. 34. and Repeat it thus, Acceptance of Him -, and More- 
 
 Who is he that Condemneth ? It over, or Alfo, Receives Him as 
 
 is Chrifl that Died, yea rather our Interceflor or Advocate for 
 
 that is Rifen again^ who maketh Us, on Account of His Meri- 
 
 Interceflion for Vs. torious Death and Paflion, which 
 
 But, Sir, the Rather is put to He there Meads on our Behalf, 
 the Refurettion. And theris an But is it a Natural Inference 
 
 Interval in the Text betwixt hence to fay, That More Vir- 
 
 that and the Inteceffion, which tue is Attributed to His Inter- 
 
 you have Omitted, to bring the ceffion than to His Death? 
 
 Ihterceflion nearer to the Rather, Or that the Atonement is Ra- 
 
 as likewife the*//o which fhews ther to be placed to- the Ac- 
 
 that the 'Inttrcefcon is fpoke of as count of His Intercejfion than of 
 
 a thing by it felf, and is not His Death? Whereas the Inter- 
 
 brought into the Comparifon, or nffton is on Account of His 
 
 Meant in the Rather. For thus Death. But if it was not on 
 
 the Text runs, Yea Rather Account of his Death, as" you . 
 
 that if Rifen again, who it even fay, and that the Efficacy is 
 
 at the Right- Hand of God, in the Interceffion it felf) then 
 
 who alfo makcth Jttterciffion for to what Purpofe was his De^? 
 
 Vs. The Climax or Transition Might He not have Interceded 
 
 here is very ELafy. Who is he without that ? Gr wou'd-it not 
 
 have.
 
 lute been fo Prevalent? Here 
 you are Pinch'd, you Enemies 
 to the Crofs of Chrift, and De- 
 fpifers of his Death! 
 
 But to go on with your Ar- 
 gument. Yon lay in the next 
 Words, His Rejurreftion being 
 fo Requifite to his Inter ceffion for 
 Pardon Reqnifite indeed ! 
 For if He had continued Dead, 
 how cOu'd He have Interceded ? 
 But if that had been all, He 
 might have fav'd it by not 
 Dying, then ther bad been no 
 Need of his Refurre&ion. And 
 he did Intercede before his Death, 
 with Strong Crying and Tears. 
 But his Death mull Intervene 
 before He cou'd Intercede on 
 Account of his Death, as Paft 
 and Done. And towards this 
 indeed his Refurreftion was ab- 
 fblntely Neceftary. And here 
 yon may learn the Difference 
 betwixt bis Interceffto* before 
 and after his Death. If yon 
 fee no Difference, then yon 
 make no Account of his Death 
 at all! 
 
 Weft, bat his RefurrelKon be- 
 ing thus Requifite to his In- 
 tcrcefwn, yon Infer, that the 
 lame ApoHle fays, */ Chrift be 
 mt Raffed, m are yet in out 
 Sins. \ Cor* xr. 17, wtmth- 
 hit Death: And the Re a- 
 jt *ir, hecaufe he M0fe a~ 
 gain 'far #vr Juftifcatien* Rom* 
 iv. ^%. AB thif you fay to lay 
 afide the Virtu* of hi$ Death. 
 But if yoa had fct down the 
 
 whole verfe Rom. ir. ij. it 
 wou'd have Defeated your De- 
 fign. For the Words are, Who 
 was Delivered (that is to Death ) 
 for our Offences, and Raifed again, 
 for our Justification. Here the 
 Necejfity and Efficacy of his Death 
 appears. But we cou'd not be 
 Jvftified by it, or our Debt 
 difcnar'd till his Rcfitreftion, be- 
 caufe if Ha had Remained al- 
 ways in the Prifon of Death, 
 he had been a fetkw-Prifomr 
 with Us, but this wou'd not 
 have Difcharged Us. But by 
 opening the Prifon Doors and 
 coming out, He ftew'd the 
 Debt was Difcharged. And there- 
 fore the Jpoftle {aid Juftly, if 
 Chrift be not Raifed, we are yet 
 in our Sins. The Debt is not 
 Paytt, Chrift is ftill a Prifintr. 
 And his Refvrrettion bad been 
 of no more Ufe to Us than 
 that of Lazarw, if He had not 
 Died as a Sacrifice for our Sim. 
 But as you place no Virtue (as 
 to Us) in his Death, fo you 
 make nothing of his Refurretti* 
 on, but as a Requifite towards 
 his being our Imerceffor, as he 
 was (and no otherwife than) 
 before bis Death. And on thit 
 (hi Intercetfion) it if (jay you) 
 that the jtysftle lays the Streft 
 #f 4 Chriftians Hope of Salvation 
 by Chrift. Heb. v* 15, that if, 
 ffe ever Iweth to make Intercti* 
 fan for V/, And God forbid 
 any good Chriftian ihoa'd not 
 always lay #r*/5 upon it, But 
 
 not
 
 not as you do, to Depreciate 
 and Lejfen the Efficacy of His 
 J>^/; for the Remiffion of our 
 Sins. 
 
 You Underftand not the 
 
 Oeconomy of our Salvation, and 
 
 therefore fet up one Part to 
 
 Beat down another. And you 
 
 take away That which the 
 
 Scripture makes the Ground and 
 
 Foundation of all, that is, the 
 
 Sufferings and Death oi Chrift. 
 
 Of which you make no more 
 
 than the Example of the.-Prfft- 
 
 ence and Refgnation of a Good 
 
 Man. But you put all the Ef- 
 
 fcacy upon the Interceffion alone, 
 
 His Interceffion on Account of 
 
 His Meritorious Dr^fe and Paf- 
 
 fon, Includes the whole Qecono~ 
 
 my. But without tfoat, what 
 
 can you make ot Interceffion a- 
 
 lone? Can any Reafons or Afo- 
 
 tives be Ufed to 6"^ that He 
 
 do's not Know already ? I op- 
 
 pofe not the Interceffion of 
 
 Chrifl to His Death, they come 
 
 both into the fame. But where 
 
 the Interceffion of Chrifl is men- 
 
 tion'd Once in the New Tejta- 
 
 ment, His Death is a Hundred 
 
 times. I can Remember but 
 
 two Texts that fpeak of His 
 
 Interceffion for Us, that is+Rom. 
 
 viii. 34. and Heb. vii. 25. Both 
 
 which you have Named, and I 
 
 believe you can Name none o- 
 
 ther. And the Interceffion of the 
 
 Sfirit for Us is as often Men- 
 
 tion'd, Rom. viii. 26, 27. Do 
 
 you, Sir, Uftdrftaiul Chrifl by 
 
 the Sfirit here? Or Cod the 
 Father, that He maKeth /wfer- 
 ceffion to Hlmfelf? Or what o- 
 ther Per/0** is Meant here? For 
 it muft be a Perfon that maketh 
 Interceffion. And if 1 fliou'd put 
 the Word Interceffion inftead of 
 the Word Satisfaction, and Run, 
 all thofe Divifions you do upon 
 it in your p. 17. and 18. you 
 wou'd think me not only a 
 Trifer but a Blaffkemer. But 
 this by the By. 
 
 Now for the Twice that the 
 Interceffion of Ckrift is Menti- 
 oned j See, among many others, 
 the following Tear*, that yon 
 may Refled where the Scripture 
 lays the main 5/re/}, that it is 
 upon the Suffering s and Death of 
 Chrift. 
 
 The <?/jf /is calTd the Preach- 
 ing of the Crofi. i Cor. i. 17, 
 18. Suffering Perlecation for 
 the Grofs of Cbrift* Glorying 
 in the Cr/r% Gal. vi. 12. 14* 
 Having abolHhed ia his fie fa 
 the Enmity - Reconciling by 
 the Crafe. Eph. ii. 15, id. 
 Made Peace by the ffatl of 
 his Cro/>. Col. i. 20. Recon- 
 ciled to God by the Death of 
 his Son - We are Baftiztd 
 into his Death. Rom. v. 10. 
 vi. 3. Reconciled in the JBodv 
 of his Flejh throgh Death Col. 
 i. 22. That through Death he 
 might Deftroy him that had 
 the Power of Death, that is, 
 the Devil, and Deliver themf 
 who through fear of Death, 
 
 were
 
 were Subjeft The Blood of 
 Chrifl purge your Conference 
 That by Means of Death-, for 
 the Redemption of Tranf- 
 greffions Through the Offer- 
 ing of the Body of Jefus Chrifl. 
 Heb. ii. 14, 15. ix. 14, i$-x. 
 10. My Blood of the New Tefla- 
 
 ment For the Remiffion 
 
 of Sins. Matth. xxvi. 28. The 
 Church of God which He hath 
 Purchafed with His own Blood. 
 Aft. xx. 28. whom God hath 
 fet forth to be a Propitiation^ 
 through Faith in His Blood 
 Juftified by His Blood. Rom. iii. 
 25. v. 9. Redemption through 
 His Bloody the forgivenefs of 
 Sins. Eph. i. 7. Col. i. 14. By 
 His own Blood He entered in 
 once into the Holy Place, ha- 
 ving Obtained Eternal Redem- 
 ption for Us To enter 
 
 into the Holieft by the Blood 
 
 of Jefus The Blood of the 
 
 Covenant wherewith he was 
 Sanctified Sandifie the Peo- 
 ple with His own Blood. Heb. 
 ix. ii. x. 19. 29. xiii. 11. 
 Through the Sprinkling of the 
 Blood of Jefus Chrift^ Re- 
 deemed with the Precious Blood 
 of Chrifl. i Pet. i. i. 19. The 
 Blood of Jefus Chrifl Cleanfeth 
 Us from all Sin. i Joh. .i. 7. 
 Waflied Us from our Sins in 
 
 His own Blood Thou waft 
 
 Slain, and haft Redeemed Us 
 to God by Thy Blood Warn- 
 ed their Robes and made them 
 white in the Blood of the Lamb. 
 
 Rev. i. -5. v. 9. vii. 14. 
 
 our Paffover is Sacrificed for Us. 
 
 i Cor. v. 7. 
 
 I cou'd bring many more 
 Texts to the fame Purpofe. It 
 is the Conftant Strain through 
 all the New-Teflamem. Where- 
 as the Intercession is but Twice 
 tranfiently Nam'd through the 
 Whole: Upon which then do's 
 the Scripture lay moft Strefs.? 
 
 I have Sufficiently Caution'd 
 before, That I fay Nothing in. 
 Derogation to the All-Suffici- 
 ent L'lterceflion of our Lord Je- 
 fus; but only to JDeted the 
 Subtilty of this Socinian, who 
 under Colour of That wou'd 
 take away all the Merit of the 
 Sufferings and Death of Chrifl^ 
 as to Us, and will let them 
 be no Part, or a very Slight 
 one, in the Oeconomy of our Re- 
 demption. 
 
 (XVII.) You make very 
 much of the Inftance of Da- 
 vid, p. 14, 15, who was Par- 
 don'd without Offering or Sa- 
 crifice. But your felf gives the 
 Reafon, becaufe ther was no 
 Sacrifice under the Law for Mur- 
 der or Adultery. Well then, 
 you Infer ^ from thence, That 
 Repentance is Sufficient to Ex- 
 piate greater -Sins than Sacrifice! 
 But, Sir, Repentance was Re- 
 quir'd to go along with their 
 Sacrifices^ elfe they were often, 
 told that their Sacrifices mould 
 not be Accepted. Ther w&s 
 
 no.
 
 no Sacrifice Appointed for Blaf- which Chrift repeated upon 
 
 phcmy, Murder Adultery or o- the Crofs) is a Delcription of 
 
 ther Capital Crimes, but they His Paffion even Literally. And 
 
 muft Dye the "Death. But the Lvk. xxiv. 44. the Pfalms are 
 
 Jews had a Tradition, and have Named with Mofes and tho 
 
 ftill, That ther would be an Prophets concerning All thing's 
 
 Expiation under the Mejfiah for which Chritt was to Fulhll, how 
 
 thofe Sins which were not Ex- it Behoved Him to Suffer, and 
 
 by the "Law. But D.I :d to j?//e from the DfW, and 
 
 knew more. He believed the tkat Repentance and Remijfion of 
 
 Incarnation of Chrift. His Pricft- Sins fooxU be Preached in His 
 
 hood, Death, and Refurreltion, Name^ &c. And we cannot 
 
 which would Superfede the fuppofe but that David who 
 
 Legal Sacrifices, that were but few this fo Plainly, and had 
 
 Types of Hrm, as is largely In- this Faith in Chrift, had Re- 
 
 fitted upon in the Epiftle to the gard to Him in his Repentance, 
 
 Hebrews. There Chap. x. 5. The ' and that ther was Expiation in 
 
 Prophefy of David is Quoted His Blood for Sins to which 
 
 concerning the Incarnation of the Sacrifices of the Law did 
 
 Chrift, and His Coming in Place not Reach. 
 
 of the Legal Sacrifices, whofe I believe you will Allow that 
 
 Blood could not take away Sins, the Repentance even of thofe 
 
 Wlierefore (as a Remedy for who know not Christ is Ac- 
 
 this) When Chrifl cometh into the cepted through the Mediation 
 
 World, he faith, Sacrifice and Of- of Christ. Much more then 
 
 fering thou wouldeft not, hut a might the Repentance of JDavid 
 
 Body haft thou prepared me. This who Knew it fo well. And if 
 
 is Quoted from Pfal. xl. 6. And it was through the Intercejjion 
 
 Chap. vii. David's Prophefy of of Christ, then, by what I have 
 
 the Priefthood of Christ, Pfal. faid, it was in Virtue of His 
 
 ex. not after the order of Death and Pajfion, which was 
 
 Aaron, is ftrongly Enforced by that Sacrifice could take away 
 
 the Apoflle. And Aft. ii. 31. all Sins. From which Men could 
 
 David is again Quoted for the not be Jnftified by the Law of 
 
 Death and Refurrettion of Chrift, Mofes. A&. xiii. 39. 
 
 which it is faid, he plainly This gives an Eafy Solution 
 
 Forefaw and Spoke of. Pfal. xvi. to that Text //^. X. 26. there 
 
 10. And again Aft. xiii. 33. Remaineth no more Sacrifice for 
 
 The Second Pfalm is Quoted for Sins, that is, Ther were Sins 
 
 the Refurreftion of Christ. And which could not be ^Expiated, 
 
 Pfal. xxii, (the firft words of by the Sacrifices under -the Law : 
 
 D 
 
 Yet
 
 ( 
 
 Yet were Expiable by the Sa- 
 crifice of the Meffiah. But if 
 we Rejed this Sacrifc-e, ther is 
 none other to Come whereby 
 \ve may be Saved. This was 
 Written to the Jey-Sy to fhevv 
 them that their JMejfiah was 
 Come, and that none other was 
 to be Expeded. Therefore if 
 they Rejeded Himy ther was 
 No more, that is, no other Sacri- 
 fice for Sins. *'A 77 cijcAiiTO7tt' jam 
 non Relinquitury ther is no Sa- 
 crifice Lefty or to Comfy which 
 can take away Sins. But this 
 fays not, That even after Afo- 
 facyy if we Return to this Sa- 
 crifccy it is not Sufficient to 
 take away That and all other 
 our Sinsy but only, That ther 
 is no Other Sacrifice but This 
 which can do it. 
 
 (XVIII.) Then, Sir, think of 
 your Cafe who have no Faith 
 in this Sacrificey but Argue here, 
 That bare Refentance without 
 it is Sufficient. And if fo, then 
 for what End was it fent ? 
 Kay you think it no Sacrifice 
 at all, but rather an Acciden- 
 tal thing, and Argue againft 
 the Jvfiee of it on GW's part, 
 if He had any Hand in it, o- 
 thervvife than as barely Per- 
 mitting the Wickednefs of thofe 
 TV ho did it. You ft y r p. 10. 
 
 " If it were Juf to Inflid 
 " this as a Puxifhment on Je- 
 " fus Christy no doubt God 
 f might Juftly have Commanded 
 
 u the Jem to flay Him, and" 
 ct then it had look'd more like 
 " Punifhment ^ whereas by a 
 " bare Permiflion or Secret Willy 
 " it comes to pafs that the 
 ct moft Solemn Vindication of 
 " Severe .Jvftice was made to 
 " look like an Accidental thing , 
 " and fcarce to be Diftiiiguiih'd 
 " from the Ordinary Trials 
 " of the Saints, as to the 
 
 c Ground of his Sufferings, and 
 " lofes its true ufe. 
 
 Sir, this is making very 
 free with the Methods of Pro- 
 vidence^ that if they be not 
 juft as you Fancy^ they lofe 
 their Vfe ! But the Folly ef God 
 is Wifer than Men. And tho* 
 we Underftand not His De* 
 pgns in all His Dtfpenfaions, 
 yet we are to Reverence them, 
 and believe them Wife and Good. 
 You durft not thus Prie into 
 the Cabinet of Princes^ and Cj- 
 fure their Actions. 
 
 fc It is faid i Cor. ii. 8. That 
 *'/ they had known ;>, they would 
 not have Crucified the Lord of 
 Glory. Kow, Sir, would you 
 have had God force their Will 
 to do' fo very Wicked a thing ? 
 This would have been to Alter 
 the Nature of Man, and take 
 free Will from him, by whick 
 as he could not be Guilty of 
 Sitiy fo neither had he been Li- 
 able to Tvnifhment') TJnlefs you 
 think it Jvft to Punifk Men for 
 what was not in their Power 
 to Help. And this would have 
 
 made
 
 made GW the Sole utlnr of 
 >'#. This is the Method in 
 which you would Mead Provi-. 
 
 And this you think more 
 Reafonable, than that they 
 fhould do it Ignorantly, and thefe 
 Builders Ihould Reject the Corner 
 Stone, through their own De- 
 fault. And it was Prophefied 
 that it fhould thus be brought 
 to Pafs, as the Ayofle % tells 
 them, for they that dwell at Je- 
 ritfalem, And their Rulers, becaufs 
 they knew Him not, nor yet the 
 Voice* of the Prophets which are 
 Read every Sabbath-Day , they 
 have Fulfilled them in Condem- 
 mngH'im -- And, they Fulfilled 
 all that was Written of Him. Adt 
 xiii. 27. 29. But you think all 
 this was Wrong, and that God 
 mould have Commanded the 
 Jews to have Crucified him, if 
 He intended him as any Sacri- 
 fice or Propitiation for Sin, elfe 
 that all He did Lofes its true 
 Vfe. 
 
 Do's not Cod often Punifh 
 Sins, and yet do's not by a 
 Voice from Heaven tells Us for 
 what Particular Sin flich a 
 Judgement was fent ? He leaves 
 that to our o\Vn Applicati- 
 on. 
 
 And He makes ufe of the 
 Wickedness of fome, to Punilh 
 the Sins of others, as the Sin 
 of David was Punifhed by the 
 iffn of Abfalom. 
 
 And as God doth Govern all 
 Events, fo ther is no Evil in 
 the City which the Lord hath 
 not done Am. iii. 6. And it is 
 laid, tl?s Lord delivered him un- 
 to the Lion, i Kin. xiii. 26. 
 And thus it is faid that Chrift 
 was Delivered ' : (to the Jews) for 
 our Offences. Rom. iv. 25. And 
 that GW Spared not His own 
 Son, but Delivered Hint vp for 
 Vs all Rom. viii. 32. Therefore 
 this was God's doing, but in 
 a more Righteous way than by 
 Commanding the Jews to do a 
 Wicked thing, as you think 
 would have been more Reafon- 
 able ! And do's it n6t fully 
 mew God's Wrath againft Sin-> 
 when He deliver'd His Son un- 
 to Death, to make Atonement 
 for it? Or do you think, that 
 God would not have Spared His 
 own Son, if ther had been no 
 Need of His Suffering? You 
 make it only the Plealure God 
 took to fee him Suffer, to Try 
 how Patiently he could Suffer^ 
 tho' He knew all that before ! 
 This is the Rational fenfe you 
 Sovinians put upon the Stiffer- 
 ings of Chrifl, while you Rejed 
 that of His being a Sacrifice for 
 Sin as Vnreafonable ! 
 
 (XIX) You make- another 
 Effort againit His bein'g a Sa- 
 crifice for Sin, by Endeavouring 
 to Prove that the Sacrifices un- 
 der the Law had no Relation 
 2 to
 
 to Him. For this Purpose 
 you Suppofe, p. 15. That thofe 
 Sacrifices did not Relate to 
 Conscience, but were a Politi- 
 cal Inftitution, and a Rite on- 
 ly by which they fowght Par- 
 don for their Political Guilt 
 from Cod as their State Ruler. 
 And that this was the Reafon 
 why no Sacrifice was Allowed 
 for thofe Crimes which were 
 made Capital by the Law, be- 
 caufe they had no Signification 
 but to Excufe from Temporal 
 punifhment, or Temporal or Ci- 
 vil Crimes. And you fay, p. 
 itf.ThatOtherwife, if they had 
 had any Refped to the Pur- 
 ging of Conscience from 5/w, or 
 to the Death of Chrtft, If it 
 had been fo (fay you) / think it 
 had not failed to have been- Men- 
 tioned In the Epiftle to the He- 
 brews. But you were Aware 
 that in that Etijile they are 
 frequently Call'd Types of Chrijl, 
 and of His Death. But this 
 you Eafily put off faying that 
 by Type no more was Meant 
 than fome fort of AHufion. But 
 Sir, tho' every Type is an Al- 
 lufan, yet every Attufien is not 
 a Type. We may make Allu* 
 fom in many things^ but a 
 Type is fomething Ordain'd of 
 Cod to be fach an Allupon. 
 But what is the Allufion you 
 JVfean? You fay, That Chrift's 
 Death had the like Efficacy for 
 Eterxal Pacdon^ ,as the Legal Of- 
 ferings had for External and Tern.- 
 
 poral Pardon. But this Allufion 
 is no more a Type than the 
 Laves of Numa^ Solon^ or Lycur- 
 gus. Whereas throughout this 
 Epiftle to the Hebrews the Ne- 
 ceffity is Urg'd of Chrfl's ful- 
 filling every Circumftance of 
 His Types under the. Law of 
 Mofes y even to His Suffering 
 without the Gat*y becaufe the 
 Body of the Expiatory- Sacrifice 
 was burnt without the Cam%. Chap. 
 xiii. n, 12. 
 
 Then this Epiftle Argues in 
 a quite Different Strain from 
 You. For it Suppofes all along, 
 That the Sacrifices under the 
 Law were for the Expiation of 
 Sift. And thence Infers, that 
 ther muft be & more Noble 
 Sacrifice, becaufe it was not pof- 
 fible that the Blood of Butts and 
 Goats foould take away Sin. Where- 
 fore when He (Chrift) comet h 
 into the World^ He faith^ Sacri* 
 fee and Offering than wouldeft 
 not^ hut a Body haft thou pre- 
 pared me^ &c. Now where is 
 the Argument here, if the Le- 
 gal Sacrifices were not Ordain- 
 ed to take away Sin ? Was it 
 not: Poffible for them to take 
 away the External or Temporal 
 Punifhment, if they were no- 
 thing elfe but Rites (as you 
 fay) Appointed by God, for that 
 End? 
 
 Then what was the. Great 
 Day of Expiation appointed for ? 
 It was not to Excufe any Man 
 frojja Death or Temporal punifh- 
 
 ment.
 
 ment, but to Atone for the 
 Sins of the People which were 
 all put upon the Head of the 
 Scape Goat, to Bear them away, 
 And we find no Temporal pu- 
 nifhment for the Negleft of 
 Many of the Sacrifices*, as thofe 
 Appointed after Child-birth^ &c, 
 And they were not Rites to 
 procure Pardon foa any Civil 
 or Political Crime. But to fhew 
 the Impurity of our Corrupted 
 Nature, and that we are orn 
 in Sin. 
 
 But, Shy you are got in with 
 the Men of the Rights, who 
 Confider God only as thcStat* 
 Ruler of the Jews, and HhLaws 
 to have no other than a Poli- 
 tical Meaning, without any Re- 
 fpeft to Sin or a future State. 
 And I fuppofe you are of their 
 Opinion too, That God had 
 this Authority Deriv'd to Him 
 by the People, and gave them 
 Laws by Virtue of the Horeb 
 Central! Great part of their 
 Artillery came out of your 
 Forge. 
 
 But, Sir, you have Slip an 
 Exprejfion ,here, in yourZ^/ to 
 make the , Legal Sacrifices only 
 Allufions and not Types. Yo^ 
 fay, That Chrfl's Death had 
 the like Efficacy for Eternal par- 
 </<?, as the Legal Sacrifices had 
 for External and Temporal pardon, 
 Quite forgetting. that you make 
 nothing of the Death of Chrift 
 as to Propitiation, but Place all 
 iil she Intmeflion only, of 
 
 which I have fpoke Sufficient- 
 ly. But that wou'd not have 
 Anfwe*'d the Types or Attufion 
 (if you will call it fo) of the 
 Legal Sacrifices, which did not 
 Intercede at all. But had Re- 
 fped only to the Death of Chrift. 
 Therefore you were Forced to 
 make "Ufe of that Word. It is 
 hard for Error to be Confident 
 with it felf. 
 
 (XX.) But you Strike Home, 
 and Quote Authorities y p. 17. 
 you fay, " Befides, how can 
 " one Infinite Sacrifice (if it 
 "be fuppofed) be an Equira- 
 "lent for fo many Myriads 
 cl of Infinite Sins? as a Great 
 " Prelate of the Age has ob- 
 u ferv'd in one of his four Di- 
 cc fcourfes. Will not each Crime 
 " need an Infinite Sacrifice ? 
 " If you Jfay one Infinite is as 
 " much as many of the fame 
 u kind, becaufe it can have 
 " no Addition Then a whole 
 " Courfe of Debaucheries ought 
 ' to fit as Eafy on the Con-- 
 a fcience, as one fingle Infinite 
 " Faulty and. will not this be 
 " a fine way to make your 
 a Dodrine of Satisfaction a corn- 
 tc fortable Dodrine.l 
 
 Sir, I will not Ask who 
 your Prelate is, or if you-Quo6e 
 him Right ? But to the Argu- 
 ment. It is all Built upon Mi- 
 ftake, and a poor Jingle on 
 the Word Infinite. Ther is none 
 Infinite but God. And we can- 
 
 not
 
 (3) 
 
 iirrt; frame an UCA of an * Tup- whom they are Made. I Name 
 nite Nature. No Sin can be In- neither perfcn, nor Prelate, nor 
 ywife in its Nature. But we -Sermon. And where you fee 
 call it Infinite, as being an Of- I avoid Reffttion, you ought 
 fence againit an infinite Being, not to bring them in. They 
 And the Guilt of an Offence lye then upon you. But is this 
 Rifes according to the Dignity -of Hell Torments any Part of 
 of the Perfon Offended. Thus Senctnianifm ? How was this 
 an Affront to a King is a then making him a Sodnian? 
 Greater Offence than the fame You Endeavour to Clear the 
 Affront if Offer 'd to a ^Private Sodniam from it, p. 19. by 
 Perfon. And Meafuring by the faying that the Racovian Cate- 
 Dignity of the Perfon, what can chifrn, and other of their Wri- 
 we call a Sin ^gainft God, but tings Exprefly own Eternal P-u- 
 an Infinite Offence ? And we can- ni foments, and that Dr. Stilling- 
 not make any Satisfaction for fleet cites them, as Afierting, 
 it, as we may to a Man, even that GW's Veracity is Concerned 
 to a King Offended. But to in the Execution of thofe Threat- 
 fay it will follow from hence, -rings on the Impenitent. 
 That ther cannot be Greater Thus, Sir, you have Clear'd 
 Provocations, or more Sins in the S^cinians. And yet at the 
 Number, becaufe nothing can End of your p. 6. you Argue 
 be Added to Infinite, is Play- with fome Warmth againft the 
 ing with a Word, and not Vn- Eternity of Hell Torments. And 
 demanding,, becaufe we will not ufe the very Argument in that 
 Vnderjtand. I dare leave it to Sermon. You fay, 
 any Common Reader, whether ' ** That whatever the Cer- 
 this is not a Meer Cavil. And " tain Natural Conferences of 
 as' fuch I pafs it. cc Sin may be, to render an 
 
 " Incorrigible Sinner Mifera- 
 
 (XXI.) Butj p. 19, 10. You " ble, and whatever Engage- 
 Accufe me for Injuring another " mentsmay be upon hisfGW'sj 
 Great Prelate, and making him%" Truth on Other Accounts, to 
 a Sodnian. In what? Becaufe " Exad the Threatned punifh- 
 of his Sermon concerning Hell ct nient on the Irreclaimable 
 lorments, that it is not Certain tc Sinner -, Yet the bare Threat- 
 they are Evert aft ing, becaufe, " ning do's not I conceive, En- 
 as he fays, Cod is not Obliged " gage his Truth, becaufe Threat- 
 to Inflid Threatnings, tho' He " ings are not like Predictions, 
 is to Perform Prontifts whieh ** nor are wont to be Under- 
 are to the Benefit of tlwft to " fiood to fignify what fhall 
 
 *' Certainly
 
 " Certainly be, but what 
 " he Expefted : They are not 
 ct given as a Pledge of the Di- 
 " vine Veracity. Death was 
 " Threatned to the Murderer, 
 tc and yet God faid to David^ 
 <c without being Fulfe^ Thou f wit 
 " not Dye. 
 
 By this, not only the JEVer- 
 nity Q$ <HeR Torments, but any 
 Hell at all is Render'd wholly 
 Precarious. For the one is 
 Threatned no more than the o- 
 thcr. 
 
 I fee now, Sir, what made 
 you fo Difpleas'd at any Con- 
 tradiction to that Sermon. I 
 will not Enter into the Argu- 
 ment now, having faid fo much 
 of it before. This only I wou'd 
 Ask you, That fmce the Ser- 
 mon do's Grant that God in- 
 tended Men fhould Believe the 
 Eternity of Hell-) to Deter them 
 the more from Sinning, to what 
 Ends of Religion this Contra- 
 ry Doctrine is now fet up ? If 
 believing the Eternity .of Tor- 
 mentf will not Reftrain fome 
 Men, will making them Doubt 
 of any Punijkment at all Per- 
 fuade them ? And if God de- 
 fign'd Men fhould Believe it, 
 why would you or he Per- 
 fuade them not to Relive it ? 
 But this we muft fay, That 
 we cannot have Greater dffii- 
 rance of it, than by GW's tel- 
 ling Us that TO it #.- iof 
 
 % You ask me, p. 20, " VVhe- 
 " ther 1 intended tu Slur that 
 
 ^ Illuftrous Archj-Bifhop (whofg 
 " Noble Parts, great Integrity, 
 ^ c and Sweet Temper,: rendred 
 " him one of greateft Orna- 
 cc ments of the Church and 
 " Age) 'by telling.: t^e Wodd 
 cc he was a Sofini&n't 
 
 Sir, where, hdye, L tt>ld the 
 World fo ? Unlefs- you think 
 that his Opinion concerning 
 Hell is Sociniani/m. And 1 was 
 fo far from Intending to Slur 
 him, that I oiily gave iny 
 Thoughts as to his Opinicn, 
 without Naming eithef Him- 
 fclfor his Sermon. 
 
 And 1 muft tell you, Sir, 
 That Tour high Commendati- 
 on of him will not Contribute 
 much to Clear him from the 
 Charge of Socinianifm, .if any 
 lays that upon him. You mould 
 have dealt as Tenderly with 
 him as 1 did r and not have 
 Nam'd him upon this Occafi- 
 on. But I fuppofe you thought 
 it a Credit to your Caufe, ta 
 have him, and the other Great 
 Prelate you Quote, Sufpefted of 
 Favouring it. 
 
 But all this is Forreign to 
 our prefent Difpute. Only yen 
 wou'd Hale it in. And I 
 thought it Civil to give you an 
 Anfwer. 
 
 (XXII.) It feems all! touch 
 is Defiled, not Excepting the 
 Holy Scriptures. For juft before 
 this Attack upon me, p. 19* 
 You Ridicule fome Scripture-Ex-
 
 * c 
 
 prejfiotts which I ufe, and fay to 
 we, 
 
 u As to your wild Antino- 
 " mian Suggeftions Scatter'd up 
 " and down, about Chrift's 
 " Suretyjkifr his being the Re- 
 " cone Her of Angels, who ne- 
 " ver Offended, as well as of 
 " Men ; your pretty Metaphors 
 " about being Ctoathtd in the 
 u Garments of our Elder Bro- 
 " ther (a bold word to Ufe 
 tc of Almighty God, for as 
 " Chrifl was Man, you'll not 
 " fay but there were Elder 
 " Brethren than he) your Talk 
 " of Darning and Cabling, Rub- 
 bing -anti Scrubbing, Patching 
 and Scouring, the Filthy Rags 
 of our .Righteoufnefs, &C. 
 This lait -was a S////f I 
 made of a Man Cloathed in 
 filthy Rags, coming to Court, to 
 lit down with the King at his 
 Table, at the Marriage of his 
 Son-, and not .putting on aWed- 
 ding-Garment, but - thinking it 
 well enough to Patch and Clean 
 his filthy Rags, which I com- 
 par'd to thofe who Truft in 
 their own Righteoufnefs. And as 
 to my Words, you may make as 
 Free with them as you pleafe, 
 but do you not know, That 
 our Rigkteoufnefi is Compared 
 to fitly Rags? Ifai. Ixiv. 6. Is 
 not Chrifl call'd our Surety ? 
 Heb. vii. 22. And is it not 
 faid that all things in Heaven 
 as well as on Earth are Recon- 
 ciled by Him . ? Col. i. 20. And 
 
 do's not the ApoftU ufe 
 Metaphor of our being New 
 Cloathed and Cloathed ifpvn*? ij. 
 Cor. iv. 2, 3, 4. which he Ex- 
 plains Phil. iii. 9. "H^r IP* may 
 be found in Hint (Chrifl) not 
 having onr own Righteoufnefs (that 
 is, our filthy Rags) but that 
 which is through the Faith of 
 Chrifl, the Righteoufnefs which it 
 of God by Faith. And as to 
 Chrift being our Elder Brother, 
 is it not faid Rom. viii. 29. 
 That He is the Firfl-Eorn, among 
 many Brethren ? And if you un- 
 derftaRd it not, you may fee 
 it Explained Col. i. 15. 18. 
 where He is call'd, the Fir/l~ 
 Born frem the Dead t And the 
 Firfl-orn of every Creature. But 
 how came 'you to Fancy that 
 I Meant this of Almighty GW, 
 and not of Chrift as Man, and 
 that I call'd God our Elder 
 Brother ? This mews your great 
 Sagacity^ and Skill in the Holy 
 Scriptures ! 
 
 And, Sir, remember, That 
 the Difpute is not here about 
 the Meaning of thefe Exprrf* 
 fans, but you Turn the Expref- 
 fions thcmfelves into Ridicule, 
 and fpend your Wit upon them. 
 I hope not 'Knowing that they 
 were the Words ot Scripture! 
 
 You fay, " That the poor 
 " Dijfente-rs have been Jeer'd 
 u out of thefe Expreffions, by 
 " them of the Church, as Naufe- 
 " ous Cam. 
 
 Sir,
 
 .: ; ., : ;....; (33) . . 
 
 Sir, 1 dare fay you are much you do fuppofe that by the 
 
 Miftaken. The Meaning they and the Holy Ghoft no Perfins 
 
 put upon thefe Expreffions might at all are Meant, but only fome 
 
 be found Fault with. But if of God'* Attributes^ as Wifdom 
 
 any faid, That the Exprejfions or Power, &c. Then they make 
 
 were Naufeous Cant, they have this fenfe of our Baptifm, to be 
 
 fallen into Tour Error. And in the Name of the Father, 
 
 the Diflenters were in the and of his Power , and of 
 
 Right not to be Jeer* el out of his Wifdom, which are the 
 
 them. &me with 'the Father. And that 
 
 we are not Baptized into the 
 
 (XXIII.) I have not taken Names of Perfons, or have our 
 
 your p. 17, and 18. in Courfe, Faith in Perfons, but in. Attri- 
 
 becaufe I fpoke to them be- bates or Qualities, which are 
 
 fore. And I did not Intend to Nothing in themfelves, only 
 
 have gone over your Paper, School-Terms to Exprefs our Ap- 
 
 moft of it being Digreflions. But prehenfion of things, and fo 
 
 having Begun, I am Drawn in. we are Baptized into the Faith 
 
 \ will now only Add this, and Vfarjhip of School-Terns, 
 
 That as your whole Banter (for which you fo much Abominate, 
 
 I can call it no other) pro- and lay all the Errors in the 
 
 ceeds from your fpeaking of Church upon bringing them in- 
 
 the Perfons of God as of the to our Creeds. To which of 
 
 Terfons of Men, thence Asking, thefe Claffes of Vnitarians you 
 
 if the Son made Satisfaction to belong, I will not Examine, but 
 
 the Father, who made Satis- leave you to make your Choree. 
 faftion'to the Son? &c. So now 
 
 to fhew you, That the fame (XXIV.) I told you before, 
 
 may be Turn'd upon your that Intercejfion for Us, is a:s ot- 
 
 Seheme, I ask you firft, Whe- ten Attributed to the Sp ; lr.it as 
 
 that Party of the Vnitarians a- no otherwife to you, who Place 
 mong Us, who Ac/know ledge all .in Intercejfion only. But to 
 the Son and the Hoty Ghojl \ (in Us who Believe that the '/- 
 
 s we are' Baptized) terceffion is Grounded upfcn the 
 to be tfuely Diftinft ] - P*r fins, Sacrifice of the Cfofs>, the An- 
 but to be Creatures? As >/? fwer is . Eafy, 'tliat "the Sen on- 
 Blddle r and r his ' followers. But ly took Flefi,' and' 'Suffered for 
 on the 6the .hand, Others of . Us, tho' the 5fV/r alfo inaketh 
 
 E //?^f-
 
 (34) 
 
 Intercede*, and alfo upon the Inform God of what He knew not 
 
 Account of that Sacrifice. before ? Or has any more Good- 
 
 Now fuppofmg as moft of you fs than GW, to Prompt Him 
 
 do, that the Spirit is no Perfon to fhew more Mercy than He 
 
 Diftind from the F*ther 9 how was otherwife Inclin'd to? Or 
 
 might I ring all thofe Changes can the f^alue and Deferring of 
 
 upon the Interceflion that you any Intercejfor be more Preva- 
 
 do upon the Satisfaction ? The lent with God y than His own 
 
 fame Perfon to Intercede with Innate and ILflential Goodnefi ? 
 
 Himfelf! Is not that- as Abfur'd Wou'd He give His Glory to 
 
 (in your view) as to make Sa- Another, and let the Sinner be 
 
 tisjattion to Himfelf? Obliged to any but to Him- 
 
 But then fuppoling that the feff for his Pardon, nay, more 
 
 Son and the Spirit are Perfons, to the Interceffor than to Him- 
 
 (but Creatures) Diftind from filf> according to your Argu- 
 
 the Father and from Each o- ment againft the Satisfaction ? 
 
 ther, as the Biddelit-Vnitarians This you Infift upon, p. 18, 19. 
 
 hold, might I not Ask as you That it wou'd make the Son 
 
 do, What! Is the Spirit more more Gracious than the Father. 
 
 ompafonate and more Exorable And you fay, 
 than the Father? And if we 
 
 owe our Redtmptiov to bis In- (XXV.) <l How can poor 
 tcrcejfon, then we owe more " People forbear, by this Rule, 
 Thanks to the Spirit than to " to think and fpeak more 
 the Father, who but for the " kindly of Jeftu Chrift than of 
 Spirit had Doom'd Us to E- c God ? Is this one Reafon 
 ternal Destruction ! Thus you u that makes fo many Bow at 
 Argue againft the Satisfaction. " the Name of Jefus^ who yet 
 Grofly Meafuring the Per/ons " ftand Stiff at the Name of 
 of God by the Perfons of Men. tl his God and ours .? Or that 
 And I now fcew you how this " teaches others to call a Ser- 
 will Turn upon you, in what " mon of Loving chrlfi-, &c. 
 you Allow and Contend for, the <c Spiritual Preaching, while 
 Inttrceffien of the Son^ as alfo " one of Loving and Obeying 
 f the Spirity which you cannot " God is relifh'd as dry Mora- 
 Deny is Ukewife as Exprefly in " lity. ? 
 Scripture. Sir, in aiifwer to this laft 
 
 And fuppoie a !?PTP, Mohomt- Point, I wifh Reverence were al- 
 
 tA*, or P*gan r or one of our ^ways fliewed at Naming the 
 
 U)?jihou'dask you, what need Name of CW, even in private 
 
 ther is of JntercejfiM , ? Can any Coaveriatiojj, by. Uncovering 
 
 r~'' - r - - ji- v--- ..-^-_ ^ 
 
 the
 
 (35 ) 
 
 the Head, Rifmg from ones Seat, 
 
 or Bowing the Body of the Knee. 
 It wou'd hinder that Awful 
 Name to be fo frequently in 
 the Mouth upon every Slight 
 Qccafion. And it is not pre- 
 ferring the Name of Jefus to 
 That which is the Reafon of 
 Bowing at the Name of Jefus. 
 But it was Ufed as a Charatter- 
 iftick to Diftinguifli a true Chri- 
 ft Lin from the Pretended^ and 
 from all Others. For bowing 
 at the Name of God, did not 
 Diftinguifh from an Heathen^ a 
 Jew, or a Mahometan^ who all 
 own a Supreme GW. And bow- 
 ing at the Name of Chrift^ 
 wou'd not Diftinguifh from a 
 Jevpy who own and Exped a 
 Cfer*/? yet to come, but Deny 
 that ourjefits was the Chrift. The 
 fame faid Cerinthus and his Fol- 
 lowers in the Days of the A- 
 fs files , that Chrift, by which 
 they Meant the Holy Spirit of 
 GW, did Dwell in Jefus and 
 Infpire him, but not that He 
 was the Chrift or GW. They 
 denied that He took Flefh or 
 was made Man 9 only that He 
 Dwelt in that Man Jefus, and 
 Refided in Him, as in other 
 Good Men, but in a Degree 
 More than Ordinary. This was 
 the Do&rine of Simon Magut^ 
 whole Difciple Cerlnthus was, 
 and likewife all youSociians who 
 hold the fame } in Oppolition to 
 this the Apoftles, particularly St. 
 
 John, wnp lived tbe Longefb 
 and had feen Cennthus? laid the 
 Strefs of the Chriftian Faith not 
 only in Believing ia Chrift, but 
 that Jefus was the Chrift * and 
 not only Dwelt in Fief), but 
 was made Fleflj. Joh. i. 14. And 
 he concludes his Gojpel, chap. 
 XX. 31. Thefe things are Written^ 
 that ye might believe that Jefus 
 u the Chrift. And in his firfi 
 Epiftlfi Chap. ii. 22. who u a, 
 Lyar, but he that denieth that 
 Jefus u the Chrift ? And again, 
 Chap. iv. 3. Every Spirit that 
 Confejjeth not that Jefus Chrift it 
 come in the Flefoy is not of Godj 
 and this is that Spirit of Anti- 
 Ghrifti whereof ye have heard that 
 it fliould come^ and even now al- 
 ready if it in the World. (So 
 that, Sir, you fee your Do- 
 ftrine is very Ancient !) And 
 this may be the Reafon why 
 it is faid, Tlsat at the Name of 
 JESVS every knee Jhould Bow. 
 Phil. ii. 10. that is, That all 
 mould Confefs Jefus to be the 
 Chrift. And this is ConfeiIe<J 
 by Us when we Ben at that 
 Name^ in Oppofition to all Hca- 
 thens, Jewsy and Anti-Chrifts (as 
 the Apoftle calls them) who 
 Deny this Jefus to be the Chrift % 
 or that He was Really mads 
 Flejh) only that He was /- 
 ffired of Cod, and fo Cod might 
 be iaid in a Metaphorical Senle, 
 to Dwell in Flejh, as in Mofe*[ 
 and the Prophet^ &c. 
 * Hea.e
 
 Hence the Quakers (your 
 true Difciples) have taken the 
 Name of Chriftand of God too 
 to themfelves, and have pay'd 
 Divine Adoration to Each other, 
 that is, to Chrifl or God Dwel- 
 ling in them. 
 
 But you care not to Diftin- 
 guifh your felves from any of 
 thefe, and Ridicule Us for own- 
 ing that Jefus only and none 
 other is the Chrifl, by Bowing 
 at His Name. 
 
 (XXVI.) Sir, I am now near 
 a Conclufion. You complain of 
 me, p. 20. 21. for not Allow- 
 ing the Socinians to be Chrifli- 
 Ans. But you Anfwer not a 
 Word to the Reafons I pro- 
 duced for it. So that it wou'd 
 be perfeft Repetition for me 
 to go over them again here. 
 Therefore I muft Refer you 
 back to my Preface to the -D/V 
 tlogiies^ p. xxv. cr. 
 
 But to prove them to be 
 Chriflians, you fay, p. 21. Do 
 they not Wbrfhip the God of 
 Abraham, Jfaac, and Jacob? To 
 which I anfwer, Do not the. 
 Jews and Mahometans the fame f 
 But you add, And the fame God 
 the Afoflles Worjhipped. Why, 
 was this any other God? But 
 you go on and fay, Jfay, do 
 not they Worship the- fame God 
 that our Lord Chrifl himfelfWor- 
 flipped?. To which I ftill fay, 
 And do not .the Jem .and J/*- 
 fomet/w the fame ? I might add: 
 
 the Heathens too, who Wor- 
 fhipped the fame God, tho' 
 Ignorantly, Att. xvii. 23. 
 
 But here is the Difference. 
 The Ayoflles and Chriflians did 
 Worfhip Chrifl. as their Lord 
 and their God. Which is own'd 
 by the Racovian Catichifm^ and 
 all Excluded from the Name of 
 Chriftians who do not the fame, 
 and give not the fame Worship 
 to Chrtft as to God Himfelf, as 
 1 have plainly fet down in the 
 Preface^ p. xxxii. xxxiii. &C. 
 And to which you have An- 
 fwered Nothing. So that you 
 fhou'd have Blamed your own 
 Racovian Catechifm, and not 
 put all your Objections againft 
 me. But you wou'd not Quit 
 your [Founders^ tho? you have 
 Departed from their Dottrine~ 
 that you Appear not to be Vp- 
 Start indeed! 
 
 You wou'd fhew a. Difference 
 betwixt Tour Selves and the 
 Mahometans, wher you fay r p. 
 20. That they deny the APO- 
 STLES CREED in the vgry 
 Letter. But, Sir, this is not 
 True. Do they Deny the frft 
 Article, of Believing in Cod ? 
 Nor do they the others. You 
 fay (ibid.) That they Deny 
 Chrifl to be the Son of God. 
 I fay, no more than you do. 
 They fay that Chrifl was Born 
 of nYlrgin^ without the touch 
 of a Man^ by the Immediate 
 Operation of God. See the Al~ 
 wan. Chap, iii, p. 44. of the
 
 (37) 
 
 Englijfj Edition in Oftavo, 1688. 
 And in this Senfe they Deny 
 Him not to be the Son of God. 
 And you Allow it in no other 
 Senfe than this. There they 
 fay, " Remember thou how the 
 " Angels faid, O Mary) God 
 4C declareth unto thee a Word, 
 44 from which fiiall Proceed 
 " the Meflias, Named Jefus, the 
 44 SOH of Mary, full of Honour 
 " in this World, and that fhall 
 44 be in the other of the Num- 
 44 her of Inter ceffors with his 
 * 4 Divine Majefty. 
 
 And this is all that You at- 
 tribute to Him, the Office of 
 an Jntercefjor, as is fully (hewed 
 before. 
 
 But you fay (ibid.) That 
 they deny He was Crucify 'd 
 Dead and Buryd, and that He 
 Rofe from the Dead. 
 
 This is all only that He did 
 not Dye. For then He was 
 not Surfd, nor Rofe again. 
 And this is no more than what 
 fomzChriftian Hereticks have faid, 
 that He Died only in Appear- 
 ance or Shew. And, they wou'd 
 have taken it as ill as you do, 
 not to be Reckon'd Chrijiians. 
 For they thought they did this 
 for His Honour, and as not 
 thinking it Confident with the 
 Jujlice of God, to Suffer fo Inr 
 nocent and Excellent a Perfon to 
 be thus Treated. They were 
 Ignorant of the Reafon you 
 give for His Sufferings, only to 
 how much He cou'd 
 
 tho' God knew it all before ', 
 yet He wou'd Try the Experi- 
 ment! And tho' His Death was 
 not Neceflary to His being an 
 Interceffor. Therefore Mahomet, 
 who was but a Degree remo- 
 ved from an Arian, thought he 
 Improv'd upon the Matter when 
 he cou'd fave the De*th of 
 Ckrift, without any Hindrance 
 to His being an Interceffor. And 
 Mahomet feem'd to be as good 
 a Chriftian as Tou in this, who 
 make the Death of Chrift of no 
 Manner of Effect, as to our Re- 
 demotion. 
 
 Eipecially considering what 
 you fay in the Words imme* 
 diately following, "That in the 
 Subjection to the Laws of Chrift 
 the 'very Effence of a Chriftian 
 lies, more than in right Syftems 
 of Faith. So that if a Maho- 
 metan, Jew, or Pagan leads a 
 good Moral life, he has the 
 very EJfince of a~ Chriflian, and 
 then no Doubt is a Chriftian? 
 let his Syftem of Faith- be what 
 it will ! 
 
 But, Sir, ther aro other Good 
 Works belides what we .Call 
 Good Moral Works, as of Ju- 
 ftice betwixt Man and Man. 
 Thus when the Jews faid to 
 Chrift, What (hall we do, that 
 we may Work the Works of God ? 
 He gave them this Anfwer, 
 This is the Work of God, that 
 ye Believe, on Him wkem He 
 hath fent. Joh. vi. 28, 29. And 
 again,., wr, 53. . venty. verily I 
 
 fy
 
 ( 38 ) 
 
 fay uttto yw, except ye Eat the ChrijFs coming, far lefs of His 
 "ftejk of the Son of Man, and Dying. 
 
 Drink hi* Blood, ye have no Life But to make an End of 
 in you. This muft at leaft be this Comparifon betwixt You 
 Meant of Believing in His Death and the Mahometans, 1 defire 
 and Pajfion. And Chap, viii. 24. you to fhew me which of our 
 For if ye Believe not that I am prefent Unitarians now among 
 He, ye flail Dye in your Sins. Us, have given fo great Ho- 
 Here is fomething given us to nour to CkriSt as what you will 
 Underftand as to the Purging find in the Alcoran, at the 
 of our Defects, and making an End of Chap. iv. p. 82. of the 
 Atonement for our paft Sins. Edition before Quoted, in thefe 
 This is beyond Morality, and Words. 
 
 to be found only in Chriftiani- " The Mefliah , Jefus , the 
 ty ; which you wou'd Reduce ct Son of Mary, is a Prophet, 
 back again to plain Morality, u and Apoftle of God, his 
 by making That (and not Faith) " Word, and his Spirit, which 
 the Eflence of a Chrift ion. Where- a he fent to Alary. 
 as Morality being Common to Here Jefus is call'd the Word 
 all Men, tho' Improv'd by Chrift, of God. Which our Vnitarians 
 is not to be Call'd Chriflianity, exprefly Deny, only fay that 
 notwithftanding it is Enjoin'd the Word or Spirit Dwelt in 
 by Ckriftianity t but Faith only Jefus, as in other Holy Men. 
 is the Efjence of Chnftianity, See my Second Dialogue at 
 and by this only is a Chriftian the Beginning, to p. 9. So that 
 Diftinguifhed from other Men, here the Mahometans are much 
 from Heathens^ Jews, and ?daho- better Christians than the Sod- 
 met ans, and I will Add from nians. 
 
 Socinians, who, as you have But, Sir, I think you had 
 Ihewed have no Faith in the not Reafon to take it ill that 
 Sacrifice and Atsnement made by I compar'd you with Mahome- 
 the Death of Chrift for Sin, tans, confidering that you take 
 and openly Plead the No Ke- the Liberty to make Us as 
 ceffity of it, as to Remiffion ', Bad as Pagans. For proof of 
 and now you have Dwindl'd this I quoted one of the late 
 it down to Nothing but a Socinian Treatifes, Entituled, A 
 Syftem of Morality ^ wherein "Faith Letter of Resolution concerning 
 is not Effential! For furely all the Doftrines of the Trinity and 
 that Morality might have been the Incarnation. Which he calls 
 Taught Us by a Prophet or an Modern Christianity^ and fays of 
 An^el, without any Need of it, p. 18. That it it no letter 
 
 nor
 
 (3S) 
 
 nor other than A fort of Paganifm " I know they (the Vmta~ 
 and Heathenifm. And he Re- " rians) may have faid, that 
 prefents the Tartars as Afting *' the Dodrine of the Trinity, 
 more Rationally, in Embracing, " of real Perfons or Minds in 
 The more Plaupble Sett of Mz- " the Godhead, is like the Pa- 
 hornet^ than the Chriftian Faith. " gan Plurality of GW/. 
 
 For this you fall foul upon me, bir, you put in here the word, 
 
 p. 21. and fay to me, " Whe- Minds, which was made Ufe 
 
 * c ther the Vnitarians ever faid, of by one Doftor only, by way 
 
 ** Paganifm is Preferable to the of Explanation, as he thought, 
 
 *' Chriftian Dottrine, as you Af- but has met with no Appro- 
 
 tc fert in your Preface ; and bation among Us, nor ought 
 
 ** it will Concern you to fhew, to be Charged upon the Chri- 
 
 " that you make fome Con- ftian Faith, ther being no fuch 
 
 c< fcience of what you Write, Word in any of our Creeds. 
 
 " by making that heavy Charge But however you your felt 
 
 " good , if you cannot do here make our Chriflian Faith 
 
 ** it Like the Pagan Plurality And 
 
 Ther is no more of it in will you own Us then as Chrifli- 
 
 my Preface that I can find than an Brethren ? 
 what is above Quoted, which 
 
 you will fee there, p. xxviii. ^ XXVII.) But you have an- 
 and p. xxx. And there are not other Like for me too. You 
 the Words you Qpute as mine, /ay to 'me in the Next Words, 
 So that I may Return upon you, u And I think you have ihown 
 makingConftience of what you Write. " fomething like it (the Pagan 
 Efpecially Quotations ought to " Plurality of Gods) in pro- 
 be Exad. " ducing the Teftimony of Hea- 
 
 But you cannot Deny that " thens to a Trinity. 
 you make Mahometifm Prefera- This, Sir , is indeed Like 
 ble to Chriflianity, by calling your felf ! Your Great Objedi- 
 it more Rational and more on againft the Do&rine of the 
 Plaufihle.. And you put Hea- Trinity is, That it is againft 
 thenifm upon the Level with Reafon, even to a Contradiction. 
 it, when you fay, That our Chri- And therefore was a Stranger 
 fiianity is no Better nor other than to all the Word, till of late 
 a Sort of Paganifn. This is the Years Invented by the Chrifti- 
 Utmoft Moderation you Pre- ans. And therefore is a Stum- 
 tend to- bling-Block to Jew and Hea- 
 
 And pray what do fay lefs thens, to keep them from Chri- 
 
 ia this ftnae place? ,You lay, fianity. Which Objection I 
 
 turn'd
 
 tnrnM to an Argument that 
 it cou'd not be of Human In- 
 vention, it being fo much a- 
 bove fort/otfjbut that it muftcome 
 therefore from that Revelation, 
 which I ihew'd was made of 
 it from the Beginning, but 
 more Obfcurely than as it has 
 fince been Declared in the Gof* 
 fsl. That the Jews therefore 
 Retain'd a Dim Idea of it. And 
 the Heathens learn'd it from 
 them. Whence Plato and their 
 more Refin'd Philofophers en- 
 deavoured to Reconcile it to 
 Reafon. Which I .quoted to 
 mew, That it was not wholly 
 unknown to the Gentiles, at 
 leaft the molt Learned of them ', 
 and that they found no Con- 
 tradittion in" it, for they Mea- 
 fured it .not Grofly, as you do, 
 by Applying it to the Per font of 
 Men. 
 
 Having thusgam'd the Point 
 upon you, you now Turn the 
 Tables, and put the Objection 
 in the Quite Contrary way, 
 and whereas the Doctrine of the 
 Trinity was before nothing fhort 
 of a Contradiction ', and I.mpof- 
 ilble to be Believ'd by Men of 
 Senfe- or Reafon, Now it is the 
 Invention of the Men of the 
 moft Refin'd Reafon in the 
 World, who being Pagans, the 
 Trinity mull be a Psigan Plura- 
 lity ! 
 
 But, Sir, -, the Pagan Plurality 
 had nothing to do "with the 
 Notion which the Wi-fer of 
 
 them had of the Holy Trinity, 
 and Centered it in the Vaity, 
 not to make a Plurality of Gods. 
 Whereas the Gods they Com- 
 monly Worfhipped were Divers 
 Per fans Separated and Divided 
 from Each other, of Different 
 Jnterefts, and often Fighting with 
 one another, They made Gods 
 of Men^ and therefore Meafur'd 
 them wholly acording to the 
 Different Perfons of Men. And 
 you, following their Example, 
 have Accounted for >the Tri- 
 nity juft after the fame Man- 
 ner. Whence come all the 
 Contradictions and Abfurdities 
 with which you have InvolvM 
 your felf, and wou'd put upon 
 others, not being Willing to 
 Underftand their true Mean- 
 ing. 
 
 (XXVIII.) After this p. 21. 
 22. you feek to make Advan- 
 tage to your Catife by the .r- 
 flanation Dr. Sherlock lately Ad- 
 ventur'd to make of this great 
 Myflery. And from the Poly- 
 theifm Charg'd by fome as a 
 Confequence of his Explanation, 
 you wou'd Infer Polytheifm in 
 fome Chrijlians, at leaft in the 
 Opinion of others. And you 
 wou'd Equal this with the Pa- 
 gan Plurality. 
 
 But, Sir, no Man is to be 
 Charg'd with C&njequences de do's 
 not fee, or own. For at this 
 Rate every Sin may be 1m- 
 prov'd by Argument and Con- 
 
 feqne?ices
 
 up even to Atheifm. 
 "Yet it wou'd not be Juft to 
 call every Sinner an Atheift. 
 Dr. Sherlock held the Do&rine 
 of the Trinity as Profefled in 
 the Athanajian Creed. And if 
 he had been Convinced that 
 his Explanation had been Con- 
 trary to this, no Doubt he 
 wou'd have Retraced his Ex- 
 planation. But is this the Cafe 
 of thofe who Openly and Pro- 
 fefledly Deny the DoRrine it 
 felf, and Diffute agamlt it ? 
 This only fhews a Mind to d- 
 vtl, and Catch at every Advaa- 
 
 ^ ; i& 
 
 (XXIX.) You next, p. 22, 
 23. make the fame ufe of all 
 Parties taking to Themfelves 
 the Name of the Church. But, 
 Sir, they all fay, that Truth 
 likewife is on their Side. Is 
 ther therefore no fuch thing 
 as Truth to be found in the 
 World, as you wou'd have no 
 fuch thing as Church * 
 
 T hnpp T Fmvp fhfnvVl In my 
 
 Dialogues what the Current 
 Senfe of the Church was, even 
 before the firft Council of Nice, 
 concerning the Doftrincs of the 
 Trinity and Incarnation. And if 
 this has met with great Op- 
 pofition, it is no more than o- 
 ther Truths have SufFer'd. Mult 
 we Believe no Revelation, be- 
 caiffe we have Delfts ; nor any 
 God, becaufe ther are Atheift s? 
 And mult we -Believe no true 
 
 Cl ?;.! JO/i i> "'"' tf I 
 
 Chunh, becaufe ther are 
 falfe Pretenders? 
 
 Sir, thefefort of Thicks (hew 
 only that your Cauje is Dcjli- 
 tute. They tend only to Seep- 
 ticifm, which is no more on 
 Tour Side than Ours. And who- 
 ever ufe it are e'wUJr.d, and 
 have a Mind to Hids them- 
 felves, and Avoid Arguments 
 they cannot Anfrcer. It is Rai- 
 fing a Duft, that we may no: 
 fee our way. It is like Scoffing 
 Tilate, who ask'dTF/^f isTruth'r 
 But wou'd not flay for an Aii- 
 
 fwer. 
 
 
 ~w^ tfji< ia witli - ^. 
 
 (XXX.) You end 
 clamation againlt Perfection. 
 But can Inltance only in your 
 fflf, (among a 11 our Un-tarians) 
 and that by the Presbyterians, 
 and in a Country where ther is 
 no Toleration for Socinians. But 
 fince you have come under the 
 Protection of our Laws, you 
 have had City-Halls for your 
 Meeting-Honfes, and free Liberty 
 till you were Weary, 
 
 to 
 
 without making any Peccant at s- 
 on, but to Gain what Profelyts 
 you Cou'd. Nor have you met 
 with any Dilturbance that I hear 
 of, Unlefs you think that my 
 Writing againlt your Principles 
 is a Perfection-! And yet i 
 ran more Hazard by it than 
 you do ! 
 
 You coufefs the Arians-( your 
 Predecejjors ) were Pcrfecutors in 
 their Turn. But you think 
 
 the-
 
 the Sociniam wou'd hot be fo 
 now. 
 
 Sir, if you were to take a 
 Man's Pitture for Likenefs, 
 wou'd you have it Drawn when 
 he was in full Health, or when 
 he was Alter'd by Sicknefs I 
 My meaning is, That what 
 Men wou'd do is belt known 
 when they are in Power. Then 
 you muft take their Likenefs. 
 Neither their Voice nor their 
 Leaks are the fame when they 
 are under Hatches. Nay, their 
 Minds Sink too. You know not 
 how you wou'd Alter if you 
 had . another Arian Emperor, 
 and the Laws on your Side. 
 
 VVou'd you then think it Pro- 
 per to give Toleration to Open 
 Blafphemy . and Idolatry, as you 
 think our Syftem of Chrijlianity 
 is? Wou'd you not Urge that 
 thefe were made Capital by 
 God Himfelf, Under the Law, 
 and Kings Severely Punified by 
 Cod for Suffering thefe ? Wou'd 
 yoa not fay, it was the M*- 
 giftrates Duty to fee that God 
 jhou'd not be Diftonvur'd, inuit 
 than the King? Wou'd you not 
 think' 'your felf Anfwerable (if 
 you were a King) to grre Li- 
 cence to : all Vile Herefes to 
 fpread, and Corrupt the Faith ? 
 Kay, if you were a Itifoop, 
 wou'd you not be afraid of the 
 judgement pronounced againft 
 the Bifwf of Thyatira, Rev, ri. 
 2O. Secauff thon Sufferjft that 
 
 Wman Jezabel, wh*ck 
 
 felf A Prophetejj,. to Teach and 
 to Seduce my Servants ? And a- 
 gainft the Bifiop of Laodicea, 
 Chap. iii. 1 6. Becanfc thoii art 
 Lukewarm, and neither Cold nor 
 Hot, I will Spue thee out of my 
 Mouth. Wou'd you not con- 
 fider that all the Good Works, 
 wherein you put your Truft, 
 and think them the EjJ'ence of 
 Chriftianity^ wou'd not Avail in 
 this Cafe? For thus faith the 
 Son of Cod to the Bifwf of 
 Thyatira, I know thy Works, and 
 Charity^ and Service, and Faith, 
 and thy Patience^ and thy Works, 
 and the Laft to be more than the 
 firft : Notwithftanding, becaufe thou 
 Svffereft that Woman + &c. wou'd 
 you not be Afraid when all 
 thefe Good Works cou'd not Ex- 
 cufe for S-ufering any to Teach 
 and to Seduce the Servants of 
 the Lord ? When this one Neg- 
 ligent Aft in the Governor of a 
 Church, fhould Outweigh the 
 Greateft Perfonal Holinefs, which 
 cou'd not make Amends for 
 the Mifchief of his Remifsnefs 
 
 ui AlOderaiiun, fat- Oicauci HUHl 
 
 all his Hdhiefs, in Suffering the 
 Servants of God to be Seduced 
 by falfe Teachers ? Will any Good 
 jffi a Shepherd can do, Coun- 
 tervail his not Watching and 
 Suffering the Wohis to come in 
 among the Sheep ? Will not 
 their Blood be Requir'd at the 
 Haflds of fuch a Watch-Man, 
 who Blew not the Trumpet, 
 
 tho' he was faying his Prayers 
 
 n 
 all
 
 C 43 
 
 all the While, or giving all 
 his Goods among the Poor, or 
 his very Kody to be Burnt ? Can 
 he do any thing fo Acceptable 
 to God, as to Maintain his Pofl, 
 and take Care of tine- Souls Com- 
 mitted to his Charge?. 
 
 You fay, p. 23. " It is the 
 cc Inviolable Unalienable Right 
 cc of a Reafonable Being to 
 tc Worfhip and Profefs, accord - 
 " ing to his Confcience, fo 
 w long as nothing is done to 
 " the Injury of the Common- 
 " wealth in its proper Con- 
 cc cernments. Have not the 
 <c 'Unitarians a God and a Con- 
 ** fcience, &c ? 
 
 And have not Kings and /- 
 flops Confcience too ? And what 
 if thefe Interfere ? 
 
 But how come you to Limit 
 Confcience here ? .You put an 
 Exception to the Plea of Con- 
 fcience, That no Injury be done 
 to the Commonwealth in its Proper 
 Concernments. And what are 
 thefe Concernments ? And who 
 is "Judge which Concernments are 
 
 Proper tu the Cvrrtmvfnveatch f It 
 
 may A flume Concernments which 
 are not Proper to it. 
 
 But in the next place,, is not 
 Religion a Concernment that is 
 Proper to a Commonwealth ? And 
 are not Diverfities of Religions 
 found to be Hurtful to Common- 
 wealths, efpecially where they 
 all Claim a Share in the Admi- 
 nitration ? Why elfe have we 
 Excluded the Papifts, and Hoi- 
 
 land all that are not of- tfre> 
 Eftablifoed Church, from being 
 Members of the &*to . ? 
 
 But may Confcience be Ty'd 
 up in thefe Concernments, and 
 not in that which is -far Grea- 
 ter, the Eternal Concernment ? 
 And if Endangering a Common- 
 wealth is a Sufficient Reafon to 
 Reftrain the Plea of Confcience, 
 left it do Hurt to others, in 
 Temporal things , muft that Plea 
 be Allow'd to Seduce as many 
 as it can in what Concerns their 
 Eternal Welfare ? 
 
 Come, Sir, fpeak out, wou'd 
 you, if you w ere a Governor 
 either in Church or State, give 
 free Toleration to Infidels and 
 Heathens, and fee them Seduce 
 before your face all your Sub' 
 jefts from Chriftianity 2 Wou'd 
 you think this a good Account 
 of your Stuardfliip ? 
 
 If you fay, That you are in 
 the Right and they in the Wro-/jg r 
 you give up your whole Caule. 
 Where is then that Inviolable 
 Vnalienable Right of every Reafon- 
 able Being to Worfiip and Pro- 
 fefs according to his Confcience .? 
 
 I have faid thus much upon 
 this Head, becaufe it is the 
 moil Plaulible Toplcky whereby 
 Unthinking People are Seduced 
 to give Diflurbance to any 
 Eftablifkntent either in Church or 
 State. What ! not to give ^ 
 Man the Liberty of his V;~ 
 fcience ! And they fee no Harm, 
 at all ia this I And yet not one 
 
 of
 
 (44) 
 
 of them wou'd Allow it, if 
 they were in Power* They 
 wou'd then foon fee the Mif- 
 chief of it. 
 
 If any think I Reafon not a- 
 right, I will put it to the Teft 
 of FA Shew me then that 
 Church or Society of Men in the 
 World who have not Persecuted 
 (as they call it) fome Time or 
 other, when they had the Po- 
 wer ? 
 
 All Rejlraint is call'd Perfe- 
 ction by thofe on whom it is 
 Laid. And they wou'd delire 
 to be Freed from it. Ther is 
 not a Sett in England but wou'd 
 be the Eftablifad Church if they 
 Cou'd. Aad no Doubt will be, 
 
 whenever it is in their Power. 
 Therefore it cannot be Safe to 
 let them have Votes in our Le- 
 giflature. ^ And this is fo far 
 from being a Perfecvtion^ that 
 it is a Neceflary Caution in e- 
 very Wife Epablfintent. And 
 whoever Complain of it for 
 Perfection, have Defunjs in their 
 Head. 
 
 You have led me out of the 
 way of our Subjed by follow- 
 ing you. However I hope this 
 Digreffion will not be Unfer- 
 viceable. 
 
 1 pray God give Us a Right 
 Underftanding in all things. 
 Thofe efpecially which Concern 
 our Eternal Peace. 
 
 FINIS.
 
 I N 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 T O 
 
 Mr. C'L E N D O N 
 
 HIS 
 
 Traftatus PMlofopbico-Theologicus. 
 
 i 
 
 OR, A 
 
 Treatife of the fftrvf PERSON 
 
 J J 
 
 '. '- '. 
 
 Bleffed is tlj* M&n that hath not Walk* el in the Cottncel of 
 Ungodly ; nor Stood in the Way of Sinners - r a#d hatk not Sat 
 in th&Settt of the Scornful. PfaL i. i^ 
 
 LONDON, Printed M DCC X.
 
 JL 
 
 Cenfure of tbfa Book of Mr- Ckndoris 
 Parliament, #///;> //>e Order for his being 
 
 he has Mi- 
 
 flaken $s -TexHe Parii imcnt 
 
 for his Foundation of the Doftrine of the B/e/ecf. Trinity. 
 
 Tkis might have Saved my Tains as to the Explana- 
 tion of that Aft. But tfytye Papers were Wrote (all to 
 Set. x.) before the late Tryal of Dr. ^acheverell, which 
 OccafionJ that 'Sentance upon Mr Clcndon, among o- 
 ther Blafphemous Writers of the Age. 
 
 My Piiblifhing them now^ js that Sort cf Perfecuti- 
 on which only I have aimed 'at , to Convert if lean, if 
 not, to Confute thefe Enemies o/Chriftian;ty. If the 
 latter be the 'Cafe, iftiiU be a Greater Mortification to 
 Men Conceited of their own Wit, than any Legal Pe- 
 nalities. And they are Ap t3 fay, That this is all the 
 Confutation can be given them, and to Glory in their 
 Corilcri^4^ Vileft of Heretics! 
 
 This then i* to D if arm Mr. Clcndon and the Reft of 
 his Socinian Accomplices of that Sort of Triumph. If 
 it have not the Happier FfeU of Inducing them to Re- 
 pentance. Which is the ViRory I defire over them. An*f 
 IP ray heartily for them, that God would Open their Eyes, 
 and let them lee His Glory in the Face c/Jefus Chrift. 
 To whom be <*// Honour, Might, Ma jefty, anJ Domi- 
 nion, from all Creatures, Converted Sinners efpecially, 
 Now and for Ever. Amen. C O N-
 
 , - ! . . 
 
 "' ' '" ''*' 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 
 , :^'VV Supplement. i 
 L -His Socinian Treatment 
 of me. He Scorns to An- 
 fwer me. 2 
 
 1. Tet Anfwers- Hu Proof 
 0/Tritheifm agaift me.ib. 
 
 2. Hexrguvs Logically/rcw 
 
 3. / argued from the Holy 
 Scriptures, and, the An* 
 te-Niccne fathers, .3 
 
 4. He brings othw Texts, 
 . ,tihkh<he fays do net Prove. 
 
 ibid 
 
 III.. He thrtos at aS the 
 
 Scriptures, 'lik* the'' An- 
 
 . cknt Hereticks. ibid 
 
 IV. 'He Attacks -AA'* Dtfies 
 the Catholick Church, 
 Councils, and Creeds. 4 
 
 1. He excludes all Gentile 
 Converts from ChrilHa- 
 
 i- nity. ibid 
 
 2. The genuine Scrip- 
 tures Vindicated againfi 
 his talfc scriptures. 5 
 
 His Contempt of S>. 
 fohn, -and how he Cor- 
 rupts Joll. 5. 26. ibid 
 
 V. He makes the Trinity an 
 
 Invention of Plato' s. 6 
 
 i. The Texts out of the Old 
 
 Teftament^0/Y this. ib. 
 
 2. The Socinians fay, it a- 
 
 rofe from- the Miftake of 
 
 fome Texts of Scrip- 
 
 ture, and toald not be 
 
 the meer Invention of 
 
 Any Man. ibid 
 
 j. The Heathens had it 
 
 M from th* -'Old Tefta- 
 
 inent. ilU 
 
 4. forgetting J 'Plato, he 
 
 makes the Jews the frft 
 
 who- brdught it into Re- 
 
 veal'd' -Religion. 
 
 VI. f& Miih-maih 
 
 ; His Exqutffe * 
 
 1. // can make 100 Per- 
 fons c/ o^' Man. VW 
 
 2. Mif tixctllent Jbatinity 
 from Cicero. 9 
 
 5. //<? n>/^ ^^?^ /^ a Man 
 < ^ /iw^ Perfon with 
 Himfelf, tho* he may be 
 20 other Perfons. 10 
 
 4. tt Blafphemes GOD 
 and the Queen, making 
 her an Emblem of the 
 Trinity. ibid 
 
 5. He knows not the Diffe- 
 rence betwixt Subflance 
 and Accident. ibid 
 
 6.ThisAnfwers all hit Book.i i
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 7. He makes the Queen 
 Drop one of her -three 
 Perfons by the Union. 
 Andfo be thinks God may. 
 
 ibid, 
 
 8. The Horrid Affront he of- 
 fers to the Queen and the 
 Noble Lords to whom he 
 Dedicates this. ibid 
 
 9. He may make IOOQ Per- 
 fons of the Queen, by his 
 Argument, and as many 
 of God. 1 2 
 
 jo. Ht makes every Manife- 
 ftatiqn to be a Perfon. ib. 
 
 11. And the Action ,to be the 
 Aftor. His Modalities 
 of Accidents. ij 
 
 12. His Folly/'* Af flying 
 thistoGoa. 14 
 
 To make His Perfonali- 
 ties Analogous to thofe of 
 Men. ibid 
 
 14.T<?/- he witt. not Suffer anyfuch 
 Exfreffions in Others. 1 5 
 
 15. His Perfonality of Ubi. 
 
 1 6. H# Dumfoundering. 16 
 VIII. He grounds the Dotfrine 
 
 of the Trinity upon an Aft 
 of Parliament of , Wil- 
 liam, ibid 
 i. Which he makes a* Infal- 
 lible as the H. Scriptures. 
 ^.Excluding the Bifhops. 1 7 
 3. He makes ours a Parlia- 
 mentary Religion, ibid 
 
 4- 
 5- 
 
 Tet he is no Papift. ib. 
 Lenity is only in Lay-Le- 
 giflation. ibid 
 
 6. The Clergy are Scanty 
 Guides in Religion, i $ 
 
 7. He complements the 
 Church of England out 
 of the Catholick Church. 
 
 ibid 
 
 8. He plainly Incurs the Pe- 
 nalty of his own Aft of 
 Parliament; ibid 
 
 9. And is Damned by the 
 Church of England. 19 
 
 10. He makes him/elf an A- 
 theift. ibid 
 
 IT. He is Whigg and Low- 
 Church. 20 
 
 1 2. He Vindicates A. B. Til- 
 lotfon.. B. Pattrick. The 
 jtrefent A. B. e^Cant. and 
 B. ofSa.mm,for being fuf- 
 pefftd of Socinianifmv ib. 
 I j. He Claws ofMr.Hillverj 
 Wittily, for Writing a- 
 gainfl the B. ^Sarum..2i 
 Andanfrvers the Animad- 
 verter upon, his Lordjbip 
 with A Ha-ha-ha. 22, 
 Words alter their Mean- 
 ing.^ Difputes. ibid, 
 
 X. He fl*js Faft /it. Loole 
 with them. ibid 
 
 A Summary Account of the De- 
 fign of my Dialogues> and of 
 the&afot&smade to them* 2 5, 
 
 14. 
 
 IX.
 
 SUPPLEMENT 
 
 rV >. I N 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 T O 
 
 (I.) f^, Ince the foregoing 
 Sheets were Printed 
 off, an Old Socinian. 
 in the Temple has en- 
 ter'd the Lifts againft me. 
 I therefore ftopt the Publicati- 
 on of them, till I had read 
 over this Tosdulns^ Intituled 
 Traftatus Philofophico Theologi- 
 cus de Per fan a, or, A Treatife 
 of the Word PERSON, by John 
 Ckndon of the Inner Temple Efjj', 
 Printed for John Walthoe, in 
 the MiddleTemple Cloiflers , 
 
 1710. To find whether thcr 
 were any New Matter in this, 
 which (hould require a Diltind 
 Anfoer by it felf j or that it 
 might be Difpatch'd in a Sup~ 
 flement to what goes before. 
 And I eafily Determin'd to the 
 Latter, for tho' it is a large 
 Book of 224 Pages, befides two 
 E^t flies Dedicatory, and one to 
 the Reader^ all the Senfe, or Argu- 
 ment in it might be put into 
 a Nut-Shell. Nor had I thought 
 it Worthy of any Notice, but 
 B that
 
 f.\ \ 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 that it feems the laft Effort, theifm by this Strong Argu- 
 
 and Expofes this Baffl'd Caufe ment, Now, what Plainer and 
 
 even to Contempt. And be- more Impudent Tritkeifm thafi 
 
 caufe I heard fome lay Strefs this, can be Afferted by Man? 
 
 upon it, and fay it had gain'd Surely Nothing can be More. And 
 
 a Vogue about the Town. ;thus it is Proved ! 
 
 (II.) In the beginning of his (2.) I have told you often 
 Epiftle to the Reader he falls (but you will not Mind) that 
 upon me with k great deal God is neither Genus, nor Spe- 
 of Wit, calling me Brvte, and cies, nor Individual, nor Per- 
 fueh like Names for a whole fon, in the Senfe thefe Words 
 Page together, and Concludes, are taken, and as they are 
 that my Sodnianifm Difcuffd Us'd among Men. And there- 
 is not Worth Anfwering, and fore that we mufl not Argue 
 that he Scorns to Anfwer Strictly from them with Relation 
 it ! to God, nor Infer Contradictions 
 
 from them in God, becaufe 
 
 (i.) Yet he gives one Stroke we find it fo among Men. 
 
 at me, and Quotes my Fourth For thefe are only Allufans y 
 
 Dialogue, p. 1 1. where I brought not Proper Words as to God 
 
 an AHufion, that God is Named tho' the Beft we' have. As 
 
 in the Creed as a Nature or when God is called Light, if 
 
 Species to Individuals, and then we fhou'd argue Strictly from 
 
 that the three Perfons are thence, what Contradictions 
 
 Named, the Father, the Son, might we find ? Yet this is the 
 
 and the Holy Ghoft, whence he whole Socinian Topick, to find 
 
 wou'd Infer that 1 meant God Contradictions in the Trinity of 
 
 to be a Species^ and the three God, from the Acceptation of 
 
 Perfons to be really and truly the Word Perfons as apply U 
 
 Individuals in a Strict and Pro- to Men. How often have I 
 
 per Senfe -, tho' I have frequent- told the Remark >pon my 
 
 ly ' through thefe Dialogues Dialogues of this ? And he was 
 
 Gaurded againft any Allufions forced to yield my Obferva- 
 
 to God being fo taken ; and tion to be Juft, and that it 
 
 here I Word k with an As, was no fair way of Argn- 
 
 to fliew it was but an Allu- ment, and pretended he did 
 
 fon* As it is Exprefs'd Di* not do it. Yet they cannot 
 
 *logue II. p. 4. as it were a refrain it. Here is now come 
 
 Sp&ies. Yet he takes no No- out a whole Book de Perfona. 
 
 tice, ; but Proves it to be Tn- And all, as it is apply'd to-
 
 ,.by Orators and Logicians, fame Reply to thefe Things^ 
 
 And thence Mr. Qtndon rau* But all the Notice he takes of 
 
 fters <jp his Arguments againft them is in. his p. 62, 63. 
 
 the Trinity, applying the Word Where he Quotes a few o- 
 
 Terfons to Cod the Father, Son, ther Texts which I had not 
 
 and Holy Ghost, in the fame named, and fays, that thefe 
 
 Manner as to Peter, James, he names dp not prove the 
 
 and John. thing.- . 
 
 *' ^fi*^ ^ -'!* * 
 
 (3.) The Socinians pretended (III.) But p. 56. he throws 
 
 to the Scriptures. And publifh- at all our Scriptures as defi- 
 ed their Brief Hiftory of the cient, . and fays, T^ Gofpel of 
 Unitarians upon moft of the the twelve Apoftles, and other 
 Texts from Genefis to the Re- Writings of thofe Holy Men*, 
 Delations, which are ufually were moft of them either rejetted 
 brought for the Dodrin of the as Spurious, or fapprefled, or 9- 
 Holy Trinity. They likewife therwife Apocryphated, And thofe 
 aflerted that the Fathers be- few only were allowed of as Ca~ 
 'fore the firft Council of Nice nonifal, which were of fitch Nc- 
 were on their fide. In anfwer toreity that they could not he con- 
 to both which Pretences, I cealed, and -which remain now to 
 'publifhed thefe Dialogues, and -us at this Day* This -was one ne- 
 upoa moft, if not all of thefe ceffary piece of Artifice they vfed. 
 Texts, I not only argue from This They was the Church, 
 the general and known Ac- which he befpatters every where 
 ceptation of the Words, Sup- and here accufes of vitiating, 
 ported by other Parallel Texts, concealing, and rejecting the 
 but give the Interpretation of true Scriptures. By which he 
 the Fathers before the firft means thofe falfe Gofpels and 
 Council of Nice upon each other Pfeude-Scriptures, which 
 Text Controverted, and Ihew- the Predcceffors of the Sod- 
 ed them to be Intirely on the nians had forged in thofe early 
 'Chriflian fide of the Queftion, times, to fupport the fame He- 
 and againft the Mif-reprefen- rejie. This 1 (hewed in the 
 tation of the Vnitarians, or So- fame Fourth Dialogue he quotes, 
 cinians. but four Leaves after, what he 
 
 Quotes, p. 20, 21. And tell 
 
 (4.) Now when I faw this from Eitfcbius and Theodoret 
 great Book come out againft how thefe Hereticks, then cal- 
 me, and begin with my Dia- led Na^arens, were deteded 
 logues, I thought to have found in forging new Scriptures, and 
 
 B 2 cor-
 
 U) 
 
 corrupting the old, which 
 fome of them had the Impu- 
 dence to own, and called it 
 
 to be foWd off with 
 
 nor with the Authority of the 
 
 Church. And what Church is it 
 
 Mending the Scriptures ', -Others they mean at A*/?, do you think / 
 
 of them rejected the Lam and Even the CathoUck Church. And 
 
 the Prcpkev, and others other p. 195. 'Tis the Catholick Church 
 
 Parts of the Holy Scriptures j they are fo feud of, for the Sup- 
 
 as they thought fit. But of port of whofe Authority forfooth^ 
 
 this Mr. Gcndon takes no No- we muft be kept in Ignorance, 
 
 tice (may be he never read *tt they can , and the Truth 
 
 it) but trumps up again the conceafd from us. Again, p. 
 
 Pretences of thefe condemn'd 215. The three Hypoftafcs of 
 
 Hereticks, in Oppofltion to the the Fathers, conftrued three Sub' 
 
 whole Catholick Church which finances and three Perfons by 
 
 he difpifes, as I come to fhew tho Schools, it the DoEtrin of 
 
 more fully- . *h* Catholick Church. And /* 
 
 it is m many other things. AH 
 
 (IV.) In his Dedication to this ado is to fupport the Au- 
 
 the Lord. Chancellor^ he fays, p. thority of a Catholick Church. 
 
 $. My Lord) I have had no Re- The Reader (if any other but 
 
 gard to Fathers or School-Men, my felf, muft undergo that 
 
 nor to Councils or their Creeds. Pennance) will find abundance 
 
 And in his Book, p. 170. he of the like Contempt of the 
 
 lays, The Notions of God of God, Catholick Church throughout this 
 
 and God the Son, and God as tedious Book. And I fuppofe 
 
 the Son of God, is what* we have others wilt be content with 
 
 from the Fathers and their Phi to- what is here produced. 
 fophy, and not from Revelation. 
 
 And p. 173, 174- And this hath (i.) But it is not only in 
 
 been the Dottrine of the Schools Words he . exprefles his Rage 
 
 and the Catholick Church hi- agaiuft the Catholick Church, he 
 
 them And face the Ani- gives his Reafon, and excludes 
 
 madverter had Jwallow^d thus all Gentiles from Chriftianity 
 
 much, which Aouhtlefs he did He allows none to be true 
 
 upon the Authority of the Catho- Chriftians, or to have had the. ; 
 
 lick 'Church, and fo never con- Faith, but the Jewish Converts 
 
 fder'd it p. 175. And this only, and thefe he fuppofcs to 
 
 Dottrine of the School-Men and be extinguifh'd in. the Reign 
 
 Catholick Church muft be of Adrian the Emperor } after 
 
 utterly Impracticable, &C. p. which he fays, the Gentiles 
 
 ought we in this Cafe came in and corrupted the
 
 Cs) 
 
 Faith, And they wire fain to 
 bid A perpetual Adieu to the 
 true Apoftolick Dottrine of our 
 Bleffed Saviour Jefits Chrift. Thus 
 he cxprefles it, p. 51. And 
 again, p. 69. Jie -repeats it a- 
 gain, and fays, " After Adri- 
 " an's time, when the Chri- 
 " ftians of the Circumciiion 
 " were wholly extirpated with 
 " the Jew, and no Bifhops to 
 " be but of the Gentiles, the 
 " Chriftians became no more 
 " than another Se& in Phylo- 
 " fophy. They called them- 
 c felves Chriftians indeed, but 
 ct as Afelito there lays, their 
 " Doftrines were the fame 
 " Phylofbphy that had been 
 cc among the Ethnicks. And 
 p. 70. Thus* it was (fays he) that 
 the Old Evangeliclt Apoftolick 
 Doctrines concerning onr Saviour 
 were Loft. And how has Father 
 Clendon found them again? In 
 Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Sabelli- 
 xs, and Socinus, and in the 
 G off el of the Twelve Apoftlet 
 and other Writings of thofe 
 Holy Men, which have been 
 Loft thefe 1 500 Years ! 
 
 (2.) He fays (as I have be- 
 fore Quoted him) that it was 
 One Neceffary yiece of Artifice 
 the Church uid, to Admit none 
 of thefe Holy Writings into 
 the Canon of the Scripture, but 
 thofe fevp only which were of 
 fiich Notoreity that they cou'd 
 aot be Gainfaid. And was not 
 
 this an Honefc Artifice, to Ad- 
 mit nothing Dubious into the 
 Canon ? But they were not Du- 
 bious, for, as 1 Quoted Eufe- 
 bius in my Fourth Dialogue, p. 
 21. ther were Notorious Marks 
 of Jmpofture upon thofe he caHs 
 Holy Writings which were fet 
 up by thefe Hereticks in the 
 Names of the Apoflles, as that 
 all the Copies they produc'd 
 were in their own Hands ; and 
 they cou'd mew no Original 
 whence they were Tranfcnb'd} 
 and that even the Copies which 
 went about among them did 
 not Agree with one another. 
 
 (3.) But he fays that thofe 
 Books in the Canon are a Few 
 only. And yet he thinks they 
 are too Many. I have taken 
 Notice before how the Socinians 
 have Endeavour'd to Invalidate 
 feveral Books of Holy Scripture, 
 particularly all the Writings 
 of St. John, bccaufe he fpeaks 
 molt Exprefly- of the Trinity 
 and Divinity of Chrift, he ha- 
 ving Wrote the Lateft of any 
 of the Apoftles, and after Cerin- 
 thus and others had Broach 'd 
 their fferefas againft Both thefe 
 Doctrines. And Mr. Clendon 
 does not Conceal his Contempt 
 of St. John, He calls him Poor 
 St. John. p. 7$. And fays of 
 him, p. 42. The good Evangelift 
 was not Skiff d in their Philosophy, 
 and fo rvas not a Match for 
 them. Again p. 46- He, good
 
 (O 
 
 1 Man Nowithftanding his great 
 Jige, for the Peace of the Church, 
 Vndertakes to Write. And to 
 Help out this Poor Old Man, 
 Mr. Clendon Ventures to Mend 
 his Text for him ! As you will 
 fee p. 33. where inftead of our 
 Literal Tranflation of Joh. v.25. 
 As the Father hath Life in Him- 
 felf, fo hath He give* ("EJWs) 
 to the Son to have Life in Him- 
 felf. Mr. Cleudon renders it thus, 
 <0 fiall be given to the Son, &c. 
 that is, in the Socinian Notion, 
 that it fhould be given him af- 
 ter his Refurreaion, but not 
 that He had Life in Himfelf 
 before. It is frequent with the 
 Socinians to take this Liberty 
 with the Texts of Scripture, as 
 I have mewed in many instances 
 in my Dialogues. 
 
 (V.) Mr. Clendon having thus 
 made bold with the Scriptures, 
 and quite thrown off the Ca- 
 tholick Church, let us fee what 
 Foundation he gives to the 
 Dodrine of the Holy Trinity, 
 and his Account how it came 
 firft into the World. With 
 this he begins his Chap, ii- And 
 makes it a mere Heathenijh 
 Invention. He Mentions the 
 Te/ or Trinity of Plato, con- 
 fifting of the three Hyfoftafes 
 or Perfons in the Deity, and 
 that inthefe three Principles oi 
 Origination the whole irK^vy.*. or 
 Fulnefs of the Deity did Confift, 
 this (fays he p. 24.) / 
 
 take it WAS the frft News that 
 the World had of a Divine Tri- 
 nity. 
 
 (t.) But, Mr. Clendon, thofe 
 Texts out of the Old Teftament 
 which are Confider'd in my 
 Second Dialogue were long be- 
 fore Plato. Therefore he might 
 take it from them. It was Im- 
 poffible they could take it from 
 him. And you mould have 
 Clear'd up thefe Texts betted 
 than I have done, before you 
 had thus Confidently made Pla 
 to the Original of this Do- 
 ftrine. 
 
 (2.) And what is now be- 
 come of that Mafter Argument 
 of the Socinians ? That the Do- 
 ftrine of the Trinity is Con- 
 tradiftiory to all Common Senfe 
 and Reafon ; And brought in . 
 by the Chriflians upon their 
 Miftake of fome Texts of Scri- 
 pture, which the Socinians pre- 
 tend to Explain better : Yet 
 now they wou'd make it the 
 Invention of the Heathen, of 
 their Principal and molt Ce- 
 lebrated Philofophers, Men of 
 the moft Refin'd Reafon ; and 
 that the Chriftians did Learn it 
 from them ! 
 
 (3.) But it was not the In- 
 vention of either Jew or Gen- 
 tile. No Reajon of Man could 
 have Search'd fo far into the 
 Atyfs of the Nature of God. 
 
 It
 
 (7) 
 
 It was at the firft made known 
 to Man by Revelation. And it 
 has Defceflded down through 
 all Ages by 77 edition ; Chiefly 
 of the Jews? who had the Live- 
 ly Oracles Committed unto 
 them, wherein this Divine My- 
 ftery was Contain'd -, And from 
 whence, in all Probability, 
 Plato and the moft Acute of 
 the Heathen Philofophers did 
 take it, for the Old Teftament 
 was known unto them. And 
 the Fathers of the Church did 
 Quote the Old Teftament for 
 this Dodrine of the Trinity, 
 (as appears by what I have 
 Quoted of them upon the Texts 
 ot the Old Teftament) not the 
 Philofophers, or the Cabala of 
 the Jews, as Mr. Clendon foolifh- 
 ly Imagins. I have Infilled up- 
 on this in my Second Dialogue, 
 Sett. xv. N. 3, 4. But Mr. 
 Clendon Repeats the Obje&ion 
 here over again, without ta- 
 king any Notice of the Anfwers 
 there given. 
 
 (4.) I have told before how 
 Mr; Clendon throws off the 
 Greek Church and the whole 
 Cat ho lick Church ever II nee the 
 Jsivifb Chriftians were Extirpa- 
 ted in the Reign of Adrian, who 
 only (he fays) held the Faith un- 
 corrupted : For that the Greek 
 and Gentile Converts brought in 
 the Pagan' Philojophy, and Cor- 
 rupted the Chriftian Religion by 
 it. But forg'eting this, he p.. 
 27, 28. .Makes the^ Jews the. 
 
 lirft who took this Philofophy 
 into ReveaFd Religion, and by 
 this had Eftablifli'd the Do- 
 drine of the Trinity before 
 Chriftianity began. And p. 28 
 he Quotes Mr. Dodwell (hewing 
 how M&fes became of Authori- 
 ty among the Gentile Philofo- 
 phers, and was Quoted by them, 
 by the Name of I v&tn-nit the 
 Prophet. They who advance 
 New Syftems, had need of good. 
 Memories, 
 
 (VI.) Well, but Mr. Clendon 
 will have Philofophy to be the 
 Corrupter of Reveafd Religion, 
 take it how you will. * He 
 fays, p. 2 1 6. That the Chriftian 
 Dottrine was- Ecclipfed and Ob" 
 fcured by the darkfom Cloud of 
 thefe mijh mafir Doftrines of Fa- 
 thers and School Men, which 
 make up the. Doftrine of the Cat" 
 tholick Church. And how does 
 he fet about to cure this ? 
 Even by entring into the very 
 Dregs of this mifj majh ! His 
 whole Book is nothing clfe 
 but a fulfomc and tedious 
 Repetition of Ouoddities and 
 Quiddities, and fhewing his 
 Parts upon the Difference 
 betwixt Ens, Effince^ and Ex- 
 iftence, betwixt Subftance and 
 Subfiftence, Accidents and Ad- 
 juntlS) Suppofitum, Perfon, and 
 Perjonality ; beiides .Modalities 
 and Suppofitalitiesi &c, as dif- 
 ferent tor all thcfe ! And out 
 of this deep Fountain- of 
 Learning, he has extracted fas
 
 v C8) 
 
 he thinks) the true Notion of Man may be federal Perfons i*t 
 the Word Perfon, which gives thofe feveral Refpetts, viz. As 
 the Title to his Book, de per- he is a wife Man he may be one 
 fona, or, A Treatise of the Word Perfon, as he is a learned Man 
 PERSON. And then he ap- another, and as he is a Reli- 
 plies this to the Word Per- gious Man. another. And by the 
 fans as ufed in Relation to the tbrefaid Defcription of Phiz., 
 Holy Trinity, and crys EUF**. Mein, Drefs, &c. when his 
 he has untied the Gordlan Beard grows he is one Per- 
 Knot ! . fan, and when he is Shaved he 
 
 jis another ; when he has a Black 
 
 (VII.) Now let us fee what Coat on, he is one Perfon, and 
 he makes of this. This is the another Perfon when he has a 
 Jugulum Canfee. And here you colour'4 Coat -, he is different 
 will find a Performance wor- Per fans when he" looks Soure or 
 thy of hirofelf ! He begins, Sweet, w hen he makes a Mouth, 
 p. 12. with giving the Defi- Walks, Dances, or ftands ftill; 
 nition of the Word Perfon, when he Sleeps, Walks, &c. For 
 and of Perfonality. And this thefe are feveral Perfonalities, 
 he makes to .confift in what- and it is the Perfonality makes 
 ever Accidental thing, diftin- the Perfon. And hence it is 
 giumes one Man from another, (lays he, p. ij.) that one far- 
 the Colour of his Hair, his ticular Efjence may from the fe- 
 Phiz., p. 13. his Features, Com- veral Personalities be as properly 
 flexion, or Countenance , his calfd feveral Perfons, AS feverat 
 Drefs, p. 15, 1 6. Addrefs, particular Effences, can from their 
 Aicin , Deportment , &C. As feveral Perfonalities be fever aL 
 like wife any accidental Accom- Perfons. For that in the one Cafe 
 plifiment of the Mind, as Wif- as well as in the other, ire con- 
 clem, Learning, Religion^ &C. template the entire particular Ef- 
 Of this fort of Accidents (fays fence in Conjunction with the 
 he) alfo are cJl Honours, Dig Perfonality that makes the Per- 
 nities, Offices, and Employments fon. 
 of Trvft, Power or Profit, and 
 
 the like. Every One of .thefe And fo it it alfo of Perfo" 
 he makes to be a Perfonality nalities that re f nit from Dignities, 
 which does Conftitute the Offices, Profijions, Jmployments, 
 Perfon. and the like. Her Majefty, the 
 
 Queen of Great-Britain, as foe 
 
 (i.) And by the fame Rule is Oveen of England, is one Per- 
 toe fays, p. 16. The fame one fon, as fie is Queen of Scotland, 
 
 f*
 
 fhe is another Perfon, and AS {he pie, or Reader at the 
 is Queen of Ireland, -foe is ano- CLubb ? 
 ther Perfon. 
 
 (3.) You fall foul (p. 124.) 
 
 (2.*) "And fpr this (fays he, upon Mr. Samuel Hill Reftor 
 41 p. 18.) 1 think 1 fhall need of Killmington, as a zealous. Do* 
 4C no better Authority than fender of thp Greek Fathers, 
 4t M. T. Cicero, whom all mult AS appears (fay you) by a very 
 4C .allow to be a Competent Vnmannerly Btok he wrote fame 
 4t Judge of the Latin Tongue, time face againft the Bifoop of 
 44 'Tis he that thus Exprefleth SALISBURY. .But- what you 
 44 himfelf viz. Exuit homo Per- have to fay to him is touching 
 u fin am amici, quando > induit his Notion of a , Perfon. -Which 
 4C Judicit. And again, Safinec he thought he cou'd Explain 
 4< Vnus tres Perfonas, Met, Ad- without your Cramp, Words of 
 4C verfarii, Judicis. And they Supp ofoums, .Subfiftevces, &c. And, 
 44 are frequent Phrafes in La- fays, as you Quote him, p. 138. 
 tc tin Authors, -viz,.. Perfonam That from that Trite, Vital,, Su\>~ 
 44 Agere, Suftinere, Induere, Ex- flantial Vnion that is between the 
 cc uere Deponere, &C. So Saul and the Body refults : the 
 44 that Perfona, as to the true Perfon of Peter, who is Com* 
 
 44 Lat'hnty of the Word &c. pounded of Both. This you c.aU 
 
 Thus Mr. Cle/idon. a New Notion of a Perfon Tho* 
 
 The Word Litinity here was I dare fay it is the Commotir 
 well found out, for it Chimes eft in England, and what every 
 more with the School Termina- Man means by a Perfsn, who is 
 tions of Identity, Subflantiality, nofc fb Book-Learned as Mr 
 Perfonality, &c. than plain L4~ Clendon! But you Ridicule it 
 tin wou'd have done! But, Mr. thus, p. 139. 
 Clendon, you needed not have " No need now of Snb/iftence 
 gone fo far for thefe Deep 4C or Stippo[itnm to help out 
 Obfervations, for even in the 4t the Notion of a Perfon. Pe- 
 Englifhity of the Word, to Per- 4C ter as Compounded of a 
 (oK/tte another is taken in the " Soul and Body by a Vital 
 fame Senfe, as when you Mi- " Union of Both, is a Suffici- 
 'mick another, or a Player Atts c ent Perfon. He can Eat and 
 or Perfonates a Pedant upon " Drink, and Walk, and Un- 
 the Stage, &c. Do's this Real- 4C derftand, and that's a Perfon 
 ally make him another Perfon lc Sufficient, 
 than he is ? Do's he hereby But you Reply Smartly upon 
 become a Bencher of the Tern- him, A. Man Sufficient, good Mr. 
 
 C Examiner
 
 _ , -but not * Perfon. 
 
 So you Diftinguifh betwixt the 
 Man and the Perfon. So that 
 when Peter eats, drinks, &c. 
 a.' Man eats and drinks, but 
 not a Perfon; And why ? Per- 
 fpnaltty neither Eats nor Drinks. 
 No, nor the Mannality neither. 
 But . Peter cannot be a Man 
 without 'being likewife a Per- 
 fon. And the Perfon of Peter 
 do's every thing that the Man 
 of .peter can. do. O Rare 'Phi- 
 lofophy! Is not this what you 
 juft now called Mifh Majh ? 
 Mr* Clendon. And what Shame- 
 ful Ufe do you make of it, 
 to Confound cdmmon Senfe 
 attd 'Man&er of Speaking ! You 
 made fo Slight of a Perfon be- 
 fore that a Pair of New Shoes 
 fc&dc a New Perfon - 7 And now 
 ^*m are fo Strift that you 
 will not let a Man be a Per- 
 [on with Himfelf, but thruft 
 in Per fon at it ies and Sttppofitalities 
 between them ! 
 
 (4.) But you Stick clofe to 
 your Parallel of the Ouecn and 
 the. Trinity, wrath I have Quo- 
 ted. You are fo Fond of it 
 that you Repeat it again, p. 
 141. and fay, 
 
 " Thus 'tis (as 1 inftaacM 
 " before) of the Triple Per- 
 Tonality in the Queen's Ma- 
 " jefty, with refpcft to the 
 ** Triple Diadem me Wears^ 
 " in reff>e& of one of them, 
 
 " She is one GoflRjtofc er- 
 
 - 
 
 " fonj in refpeft of another, 
 " flje is another Compleat Per- 
 " fon ; and in refpeft of the 
 " Third, fhe is a Third Per- 
 " fon : And yet me is in her 
 " felf but one Compleat, In- 
 " dividual, Numerical, Eflence 
 < or Being. 
 
 But that it may be yet 
 more Confpicuous, he puts it 
 in again near the End of his 
 Epiftle Dedicatory to the Earl 
 of Sunderlandy thus, And really. 
 My Lord, I would not Prophan* 
 the Deity to flatter the greateft 
 aad beft Prince in the World. 
 But I do think the Oueerfs Ma- 
 jefty -, with refpett to her three 
 Kingdoms^ to be a mofi appofite 
 Emblem of the Perfonal Triplicity 
 in the Divine Vnity. She is in 
 each refpeft a particular Perfon^ 
 and yet in every refpeft Jlie is one 
 And the fame particular Royal Ef- 
 fence. 
 
 (5.) Mr. Clendon^ will you 
 let me Philofophi^e a little 
 with you ? Is Royalty an Effence* 
 I took it for a Perfonal thing. 
 But if it be of the Effence, 
 then furely no King or Queen 
 can either forfeit or Abdicate. 
 Unlefs you fay, it is of the 
 Mence of the Perfonality. And 
 will that be : good Philofo- 
 phy ? How then will EJfence 
 and Per f<mality be Diftinguim'd? 
 Or has a Man as many Ef- 
 fences as he has Pe rfonalitits ? 
 You have give* him fo many
 
 , that he cannot to the long Wrangling Polemic^ 
 Continue one Perfon an Hour of the Learned. That who think 
 together, if he Open or Shut othcrwife of the Holy Trinity 
 his Month, make a Wry Face^ of God than of this Trinity of 
 or Alter any thing of his Phiz., the Queen may be Silenced ! 
 Meen, or Drefs. And does he And to make this your /- 
 Lofe one EJfince, and Gain an- blem of the Holy Trinity more 
 other, upon every one of thefe Appo/ite, you tell his Lordjkip 
 Changes of his Perfon ? Effence in the next Words, that her 
 is Subftance, and the Perfonali- Majefty has been lately Gract- 
 ties you have Named are Ac~ onfly Pleafed to Drop on of 
 cidents, you call them fo ^ tell her Perfonalities, by the Uni- 
 me then what is the Subftance on of England -and Scotland. 
 of an Accident ? And how then So that fhe is now but Two 
 do they Differ? Perfons, one for Great Britain, 
 
 and one for Ireland. So that 
 
 (6.) If you call this Cave I- if the Perfonaliti-es be no more 
 ling, I will Readily Grant it, Ejfential in the Deity, than in 
 for I know your Meaning, the Queen, as you fay they are 
 But then it will Anfwer all not, then thefe Perfonalities in 
 your Book. For the fJypoftafes the Godhead may be Dropt too 
 of the Greeks, and Perfons of in Time, which you Hope, and 
 the' Latin and Englifo mean the have thus Endeavour'd to bring 
 fame thing, and they have fuf- to pafs ! 
 fficiently Explained themfelves, 
 
 not to mean three Gods. And (8.) If Perfons were An- 
 all you have faid againft this, fwerableforJW/c^'w/j to them, 
 is fuch poor Cavilling upon or fuppos'd to fee them be- 
 Words, upon Subftance, Subfiftence, fore, or to Approve them af- 
 and Accident as I have now terwards, or to Patronize fuch 
 mewed you. Books infcrib'dto their Names, 
 
 what a Terrible Reflection 
 
 (7.) But to go on with your wou'd it be to thefe two No- 
 Dedication. You after Addrefs ble Lords under whofe Prd- 
 the Oiiecn by her Secretary of tedion Mr. Clendon has Pre- 
 S/vrt^Pto give Peace to Chnfti- fumed to Uflier his Book in- 
 anity in this Vexatious Point of to the World ? 
 the Trinity, And how ? Even And no doubt the Piety of 
 by the great Inflance of her Roy- the Queen (if fhe knew of this 
 al Self, as you have Explain'd Book) would Refent with In- 
 \Trinity, and fo put an end donation that Blafphemous Em- 
 
 C 2 blem
 
 / 
 
 I I 
 
 made of Her and her 
 three Imaginary Perfons, to the 
 Holy Trinity of the molt High 
 God I 
 
 \ bu . 
 
 -.(p')ijBut, Mr. Clendon, tell 
 me, Could one of thefe Per- 
 fons of the , Queen be a Maid, 
 another, -a <W*fe, and another 
 a Widow ? Could her Per/0 in 
 England have a .5(9, and her 
 Perfon in Scotland have None ? 
 I ask this, becaufe it fully Ex* 
 plains your Emblem of the Ho- 
 ly Ttinity. For by Perfons you 
 mean (with Sabellivs) only fe- 
 veral Manifeftations of God. And 
 you might make three Thou- 
 fand or three Hundred Thou- 
 fand of fuch- Perfons, for every 
 Aft of, God is a Manlfeftatlon 
 of GW, and mews His Power, 
 Wifdem, &c. every Star in //<?<*- 
 w, and every Pile of GVv?/r, 
 every Man, Bird, Beaft, Flft, 
 &c. In ftiort, every Creature. 
 And you might Multiply the 
 Terfons of the Queen into as 
 many Countries, Parlies, Fami- 
 lies, or Men, as ihe Commands : 
 And into as many Variations 
 of her Phiz,, Aleen, Drefs? &c, 
 4s you pleafe to Imagin : Then 
 add the many Endowments of 
 her _ Mind : Then all her Ho- 
 nours, Dignities, Office 's, &c. all 
 which you make feveral Per- 
 fatalities^ and you may make 
 as many Perfons of her, as fiobbs 
 does of his Leviathan ! 
 
 2 ) 
 
 (io.) But now, Mr. Clendon, 
 I muft mind you of your Phi- 
 lofophy again. For a Afamfefta- 
 tion is Nothing of it felf, it 
 is only a Word whereby ta 
 Exprefs owr Conception of the 
 thing that is Manlfeftsd to us. 
 Thus your feveral Perfons of 
 the Queen, are only feveral 
 Manifeftations of her Power in 
 feveral Places, and in different 
 Manners. And this is all you 
 make of the Perjons of God. 
 But, Sir, a Manlfeftatlon, as 
 it is no Perfon, fo it can da 
 no Personal Adion. A Mam- 
 feftation cannot Eat and Drink, 
 Marry and beget Children. It 
 cannor Send or be Sent of an 
 Errand. Was it only a Mani- 
 feftatiou then that was made 
 FleJIt, that was Sent of God to 
 do fuch things upon Earth, to 
 Suffer, Die, and be Buried ? 
 Was it the Blood of a Manl- 
 feftatlon only that is call'd the 
 /<W of God? Aft. xx. 28. 
 Are we Baptized into the F<*/>/; 
 and Worfiip of Manifeftations 
 only, tha-t is, of Nothing but 
 Imaginations of our own, or 
 the Conceptions of our A//W ? 
 For GW is not Named in 
 the Chriflian Form of Baptifm, 
 but only the three Perfons, 
 which you call Manifeftations 
 only. Do you not Werfhip 
 then your own Imaginations ? 
 For you can make nothing 
 elfe of Manifeftations. And is 
 
 it
 
 it not Strange that Chrift. you have Named, of Phiz, or 
 
 Jhould Command us to be Bap* Drefs, &c. 
 
 tiz?4 <in the Name of Mum- But you go on and fay, 
 
 feft'ations only, without a Word p. 1 8 1. of the third Perfon, 
 
 of the P*r/0 that was Mani- And the gracious Aft of our 
 
 fefled to Us? And this muft Sanftifcation muft be the Per" 
 
 be, if what Mr. Clendon calls finality, of the Holy Ghcft. Then 
 
 the Manifeftations were not the He Was not the Holy Ghoft 
 
 Perfons of the Deity. before. But you make .thefe 
 
 three AQs of Creation, Redem- 
 
 (n.) But he calls them ption, and Sanftipcation, the fe- 
 
 Perfons too. For he cannot, veral Perfonalities of God, as 
 
 (through the Multitude of his you fay, p. 183. The Perfonali- 
 
 Phytofophy) find out the Dif- ties of Creation and Redemption^ 
 
 ference betwixt the Aft or and c. And you Explain what 
 
 the Attion done by him, but you mean by Ptrfonalities, that 
 
 calls the Aftion the Aft or or is, only Afanifeftations ot God, 
 
 the Perfon that Afts. He fays as you fay, p. 181. The om 
 
 p. 18 1. .That the Apoftles Creed, true God, wider thefe three grx- 
 
 dotb plainly afflgn the Perfonality eious Afanifeftations of himjelf^ 
 
 of the Father to be the Maker in our Creation, Redemption, and 
 
 of Heaven and Earth. Santtification. And p. 1 86. Thefe 
 
 Wrjy ? Mr. Clendon, was He External Afts of our Creation^ 
 
 not a Perfon before ? Or did Redemption, and Santtification, *re 
 
 He become a New Perfon by taken for the Perfonalities. And 
 
 the Creation He made? And p. 188. Thefe Perfonalities are 
 
 where does the Creed call this Extra Effentialities. What are 
 
 His Perfonality ? Your AJfurance they then ? Are they Acciden- 
 
 is not a Little ! talities ? No, (fay you ibid) 
 
 You fay, p. 180. And the There are no Accidents in God. 
 
 Aft of our Redemption muft Where are we now ? What? 
 
 furely be the Perfonality of the Are they neither Effentialities 
 
 Son. But was He not a Per- nor Accidentalities ? -,You fay 
 
 fan before that Aft ? Elfe how they are Modalities. 'And what 
 
 could He do it ? Or did He are thefe Modalities ? You fay,, 
 
 change His Perfon by that Aft ? It is and muft be Agreed in all 
 
 Then it was not the fame Philofophical Reafoning, that Ac- 
 
 Perfon that Died who Rofe a- cidents, Adjuncts, and whafoever 
 
 gain, for Death makes a grea- doth Modify Ejfence, muft be 
 
 ter Alteration in the Perfon Extrinfical to the Ejfence Mo- 
 
 than any of thefe Perfontlities difed* Then thefe Modalities 
 
 ire
 
 ( 
 
 are fomething lefs than Ac- 
 cidents. They are Nothing but 
 a Thought in our Brain of the 
 Manner how an Occident does 
 Modify .an Effence. : Of which 
 we know not one Tittle. For 
 an Occident it felf is only the 
 like Imagination of ours, That 
 becaufe we find ther are things 
 Hard or Soft, therefore we 
 Fancy fuck a thing as Hardnefs 
 or Softnefs, and fo Difcourfe 
 of thefe Words as if they were 
 Real Things. And thefe we. 
 call Accidents, which in Them- 
 felves are Nothing at all. And 
 if Accidents are Nothings, what 
 are the Modalities of Accidents ? 
 Thefe mult be Nothing of No- 
 thing! And if ther are no Ac- 
 cidents in God, how Can ther 
 be Modalities of Accidents in 
 Him? 
 
 We fee now to what Mr. 
 Clendon has brought the Per- 
 /*/;; of 6W, by his Philofophy, 
 'to be Nothings and lefs than 
 Nothing .' Is not this Philofophy 
 of his very Charming and Edi- 
 fyine ! O happy C/^ where 
 ^fhefe Lefties are daily Read ! 
 
 (12.) <Bui I muft not Con- 
 ceal the Reafon he gives for 
 all this Jargon. You have it 
 p. 1 88. For that there ought to 
 he fome Analogy between the Di- 
 vine Personalities, and Perfona- 
 lities among Men. Here is what 
 I have fo often told the Sod- 
 that they will Meafure 
 
 God by Man, and His Perfons 
 by our Perfons, becaufe we 
 have no Words that are Proper 
 whereby to Exprefs God, but 
 all Borrowed from Terms we 
 ufe as to one another. Hence 
 they bring all their ContraJHEti- 
 on: as to the Trinity, from what 
 the Words wilt bear in Rela- 
 tion to Men. And yet in this 
 they fall into Contradictions in 
 their own way. As Mr. Clen- 
 don in this fame Page 188. 
 There are no Accidents in God 
 (fays he) But nevenhelefs theft 
 Afa that I propofe to be the Per- 
 finalities, and to drift itute the 
 Divine Ferfons, are Sufficiently 
 Analogous to the Perfonalities a- 
 mong Men, in that they are Ex- 
 tra Effential AS the Perfonalities 
 among Men are. Firft, it is not 
 * amofl g Men. For the 7V- 
 fontllty of a Man is Effential 
 to the Man, that is, he is a 
 Perfon by the Union of his 
 Soul and Body, and ^when thefe 
 are Separated, he is no more 
 that Per/o#. This is the Ac- 
 
 in all Common Senfe, and as 
 Generally Underftood. And 
 your making the Change of a 
 Wigg or a Coat to be patting 
 on a New Perfon^ is moft Ri- 
 diculous, notwithftanding all 
 your Philofophy. 
 
 (13-) But Y ou h a y e made it 
 thus, that, by way of your An- 
 alogy, you might make the Per- 
 
 fons
 
 ( i! 
 
 fins of 6W to b<? Acddems 
 like the other, nay, meer Mo- 
 dalities of Accident, that is, the 
 Nothing of Nothing! And tho' 
 you fay ther are no Accidents 
 in GW, yet you fay, Neverthe- 
 iefs His, terfom are Extra-Ef- 
 fential) titet is, Accidents ! And 
 cannot you fee fo Stareing 
 a Contradiction as this ! Ufher'd 
 in with a Neverthekfs, that 
 tho' it be fa, it lhajl not be 
 fo! And why? ThaJt the Per- 
 fonalities which you Propofe 
 to CwftitHte the Divine Per- 
 fons, may be Sufficiently Ana- 
 Ugous to the Perfonalities among 
 ftfcn! 
 
 (14;) But -yet, Mr. Clendon, 
 you will not Suffer others to 
 ufe any Analogous Expreffions, 
 or to call Chrift the San of 
 Cod, or the ^Natural Son of 
 Cod, to Diftinguifli Him from 
 'Sons by Adoption as we are 
 Cati'd in a larger Senfe. No. 
 But you Inveigh againlt thofe, 
 Who (fay you) methinks almoft 
 to a degree of Prefanefs, call 
 God the Natural Father of our 
 Saviour, and ottr Saviour the 
 Natural Son of God, as if the 
 Deity did Propagate ajtef the 
 'Manner of Men. Thus you, ^. 
 17^. As if ther could be ,.rio 
 Analogy, unlefs Cod did dired- 
 ly Paopagate after the Manner 
 of Men!, This is the Super-Fi- 
 nefs of the Secinians, and their 
 <Sftgacit$ beyond ail other ^ort 
 ! It is faid Lvk. 
 
 -iii. 38. W"/;y/> nw *J5 ,&># of 
 Enos, w&rfc nw f/;e Son o/Seth, 
 IP&/C/; HW */ S o/ Adam, 
 W&/V& w*w rta S0# of God. 
 Did GW therefore Beget Adam, 
 jqft as, &*. begat Enos? Elfe 
 it wou'd not be (as you call 
 it) Sufficiently Analogous to the 
 Personalities among yW<?# / O ray 
 dear Father CUndon ! 
 
 0$-) Opening you Book by 
 Chance juit now, I find ano- 
 ther Sort of Perfonalities which 
 I did not take Notice of be- 
 fore, that is, the Perfoaality of 
 VK or Locality, that a Man 
 becomes a Different P^r/o from 
 every New Place he is in. 
 And /rcw /?^c? (fay you at 
 the end of p. 160.) refults the 
 different ferfonality of John at 
 Noke from John at Style. But 
 if John committed a Robbery 
 at Noke, wou'd you Hang 
 John at 5y/e for it ? For tho ? 
 it is the fame Man, yet it is 
 not the fame Per [on ! Or cou'd 
 you Hang the Man and fave 
 the Perfon f Come, Mr. Clendon, 
 you are a * Lawyer (or mould 
 be) you have Confidered the 
 ClaJJlcal and Philofoyhical Meaa- 
 ,ing of the word Perfon, what 
 think you of the Legal ?. If 
 you were a Judge, how wou'd 
 you Corred the iiily Manner 
 us'd or giving. Evidence .? When 
 a Country Fellow canoe into 
 Court at JVi/^e, and Swore 
 that the Prifoucr at the Bar 
 did Ro.b him at ,&y/e, and; that 
 
 ' this
 
 'tyis was the fame -Ptrfm-: \ffftfefw Tricksy but- like that 
 
 .;Hqw vvou'd you Rebuke the -Grave -Animal keeps his Cowte- 
 
 Ignorance of that Clown, a'rtd V?*w<? when hefhewshisNaked - 
 
 tell him it was not the fame Climbing up the -Porphyry Tree. 
 
 Perfon^ for the Man was now Your Dumfoundcring pleafes you 
 
 in another Ufa, arid : Ir&l -left; itiightftjs &M -tfao' upon a Se- 
 
 thc other fyo"4)chind'him:! WrK^^ttbiifc* you -bring it jA 
 
 How v^r^ wou'd the poor often; p. -i^Hrj'j 16$, & c . It 
 
 Eellow look, and Run back is Youthful and 'Gay, and I fup- 
 
 to Style to find the ftPjl* poTe makes* a good ?*/? at. the 
 
 that Robbed him ! This brings -Trumpet f To- fee Children Play 
 
 me to- Ask .ivonV VO(T,< T Air. $4 <*oE)iti<ftoai: .But 3 to feeoa"fi 
 
 Clendon, what become- of-^l ->/^ j4^J Mlrid^ra/waW/iflw^ 
 
 the Dead WmtilK&si f5r fmce 'has ibmePhiMg riatt^r0M\^t^ 
 
 a .^4^ Changes'lVis f>r/^ e- -viM y*r~ (as you fay' well p. 
 
 very 5/f^ he takes, ther muft no) ^ ^e /JOTT ^j fame Men 
 
 be an Infinite Number' of Lt>^ and even in their Elder 
 
 thefc caft-ofF Ptrfons in ' the Tears value Tbemfelves upon their 
 
 World! And vvhaf becomes Skiff in tins Son of Theology, 
 
 of them ? Are they Nothings, -which is in' 'Truth vahtPh'ihfofhj. 
 
 or Somethings ? Are they Sub- 
 
 'fiance, AdjMr? Accidents, or (VI.) But I hare not done 
 
 Modalities ? Let this be the with you yet, Mr. Clmdon. 
 
 have 
 
 '- 
 
 how many Ver finalities He muft llament of 9 and 10. Will. III. 
 
 have? And why then He mould Better to you than a hundred 
 
 be Confine^ to three Terfons Councils to fettle Points of 
 
 only ! Your Philofopby will make Faith ! And you call your Book 
 
 Work with this! And let the an Expofition of this AS of 
 
 Refult of your Div an be fent to Parliament That you might 
 
 the Tattler i that he may Publifh it keep within the Verge of your 
 
 to the World. For he is Ac- own Profeffion. It had been 
 
 quainted with your Clvbb. ' -'tetter for you if you, had. 
 
 Bnt you wou'd be Good at 
 
 (i5.) If you think this ma- fomcthing ! 
 king too Mirry with your 
 
 Afafcerjkip, I muft tell you, it (i.) You fay, p.. 223. ' The 
 
 is as Serious as all your Philo- u Explication therefore of thefe 
 
 fophy i which Plays a thoufand " Words t erf on and Perfonality, 
 
 f to
 
 ( -i* D 
 
 41 to fuch a Senfe as was In- 
 " tended by this Aft of Par- 
 u Itamtnt^ is what I have EC- 
 
 " fayed in this Difcourfe 
 
 " It is an old Saying, Vox 
 u Papuli, ^ ox D e h which if it 
 " ever be true, muft be fo 
 " of our moft Auguft Parli- 
 
 ** amentory Aflembly And 
 
 " there is no doubt, but the 
 u fame Holy Spirit that guided 
 u the Pens of our Infpired 
 " Writters, did Confpire with 
 ** our Legislators in naaking 
 " this Law. 
 
 (2-) But that we may not 
 miltake what you, Sir, mean 
 by our Legislators, you fix- 
 plain it in the forgoing Page, 
 p. 222. where you fay, That 
 it was high time for our L A Y- 
 LEGISLATION to take the 
 Matter in Hand. Here you take 
 Care to Exclude the Bifwps 
 from having any Share or Con- 
 cern in Settling the Dodrine 
 of the Holy Trinity. If they 
 had been Included, you would 
 not have Attributed to the 
 Parliament fuch a Direction of 
 the Holy Spirit as was given 
 to the Fen-Men of the Holy 
 Scriptures. 
 
 (3.} The Church of Rome 
 never did or could Aflert the 
 Infallibility of her Popes or 
 Councils in an Higher Strain 
 than this. And if this Gentle- 
 man's Word went for any 
 
 thing, their Argument againft 
 us would be Un-Anfwcrable, 
 That ours is a Parliamentary 
 
 Religion. 
 
 (4.) But I fufpeft him not 
 of Popery, tho' he thus favours 
 it. 1 rather think he is a 
 ><?//, and ferves that Caufc 
 not a little, in making our Par- 
 linments (but without the Bi- 
 flops) to be Infallible^ and the 
 Foundation of our Faith y even 
 in the Holy Trinity ! Who fees 
 not this to be a Banter upon 
 Religion^ Church^ and Parlia- 
 ment f 
 
 (5 ) He pleads for his No- 
 tion of the Trinity, as being 
 now a Law, fince the 9 and 10 
 of Will. III. And lays p. 223. 
 This is what our Aft of Parlia- 
 ment hath rightly Eftablijhed for 
 Law, and not to be denyed. And. 
 this it hath done with a, Lenity pe- 
 culiarto LA Y-LEGISL A TION. 
 No direful ANATHEMA de- 
 noHne^d &c. Here again he Ex 
 eludes the Bijhffps* they muft 
 have no Hand in any Good 
 thing ! Lenity is Peculiar to 
 Lay-Legiflation ! And was x it not 
 great Lenity that this Lay Le- 
 giflation did not Denounce ^2^1- 
 themaes? No doubt he thinks 
 they have as much Right to 
 do it as all the Bijhops in 
 the World ! For it is Vox Po^ 
 pw//, that is, Vox Dei with him - y 
 and the Rather becaufe it was 
 D the
 
 ( is.) 
 
 _ 
 
 the Voices of the Peorle that 
 Prevailed, when they Cryed 
 
 Crucify. -- 
 
 (6) It is high time therefore 
 (fays he, p. 218.) for Vs, of 
 the Laity I mean, to Think for 
 our ' fefaes^ and net defend wpon 
 thofe Scanty Guides (of the Cler- 
 gy) for our Inftruftion in Mat- 
 ttrs of fo great Importance. 
 
 (7.) But he is very Civil 
 to the Church of England^ all 
 this Notwithftanding ! For he 
 makes Her, as well as the 
 Parliament , to Teach the fame 
 Do&rine. as to the Trinity that 
 he has fet down. And, on 
 that Account, would fain Com- 
 plement her out of the Catho- 
 lick Church. He Oppofes them 
 to each other, and takes Part 1 
 with the Church of England, 
 He fays, p. 194- The Catholick 
 Church^ the Catholick Church , and 
 the Catholick Doftrine^ is the 
 ufual Dialett they talk in. And 
 why not the Church of England^ 
 fd fain know ? Then he Pre- 
 fers what he calls her Do- 
 - ftrine (that is, his own) to 
 that of the Catholick Church, 
 And fays, p. 195- H er f urer 
 Faith and Dottrine have the 
 Holy Scriptures for their Autbo- 
 rity-) and the Laws of England 
 for their Efiablifoment. The high^ 
 eft Sanction that ean be given 
 by Human Pemr. What, Mr,, 
 Clendon, Higher than the <*- 
 
 ttion of the Government in any 
 other Country? But you on- 
 ly mean Higher than any EC- 
 clepaftical San&ion of all Cottn- 
 cits or JBijhops, tho' of the 
 whole Ea'rth -, For you have 
 Declar'd your felf to be only 
 for Lay- Legislations^ tho' in 
 Matters or Faith ot Doctrine. 
 You go over again this of 
 Diftinguifliing the Church of 
 England from the Cathohck 
 Church^ p. 183. i8tf. 216. 218. 
 <#r. You thought this a Pure 
 Touch^ to Perfuade her to De- 
 pend for her Faith upon the 
 Sanction only of an Aft of IV- 
 liament ! 
 
 (8.) But after all, the Words 
 
 in that Aft are found Words, 
 
 and the Penalties are , againft 
 
 any who fhall deny any one of 
 
 the Perfons in the Htly Trinity 
 
 to be God. And the Directions 
 
 you Mention (p. i.) to the, 
 
 Eijhops are, That none jhall pre- 
 
 fume to deliver any other Do- 
 
 ftrine concerning the Bleffed Tri" 
 
 nity than what is Contained in< 
 
 the Scriptures. And where will 
 
 you find there your Quoddities 
 
 and Quiddities ? your Modalities 
 
 and Perfonalities ? So that you 
 
 have Manifeftly gone againft 
 
 thefe Directions. And you have. 
 
 Philofofhi^ed the Perfons in the 
 
 Holy Trinity into meer Mar 
 
 nifeflations^ which are no Per- 
 
 fons at all. And therefore have 
 
 DirecYly Incurred all the Pe- 
 
 nalties
 
 c 
 
 utilities in that 
 
 f Piii*- our Kature upon Him in .the 
 . .v Womb of the BlefFed Virgin. 
 
 (9.) And for the Church of And betwixt -Socininnifm and 
 England) (he Abhors and J?e- !>**/ the Partition is very- 
 re^ as Heretical your Wild thin, as betwixt that and ^4- 
 Opinions. Do you not know theifm. Of which your Parlia- 
 that both the Nlcene arid ^- memory Infallibility, equal to 
 thanafian Creeds (which you Bat* that of the Holy Scriptures^ 
 tie) are in her Liturgy, and Smells very Rank. It is dire- 
 that -every Word of that Li- dly Denying the Divine Au~ 
 turgy is Confirmed by Aft of thority of the Holy Scriptures, 
 Parliament -? which comes Exprefly under 
 
 Does not the Second Article the Penalties of that Aft you 
 of the Cnxr-cb of England De- have Chofen for your Text. 
 clare that Tne' Son which is the As likewife your Bantering St. 
 WW -of the f other j begotten John, that he Was not a Match 
 from Everlasting of the Father^ for the Phtlofophers, and yet 
 the fery and Eternal God of that the Poor Old Man 'muft 
 one Subttance with the Father , Write! And that he borrow 'd 
 roo Man's Nature, &c. And his Notion of the Logos or 
 do you not exprefly Deny the Word of G'o^/ from Plato^ and 
 Eternal Generation of the 5w*, you make it Meer Heathenifm. 
 or that He 'had any Exigence Is not this Denying the Chri- 
 (belidcs Ideal in the Divine In- ftian Religion to be True? Which 
 teUeft-) as all other Creatures is another Article in that A&. 
 had) before his Incarnation ? And what Christian Religion do 
 This you Aflert, p. 169, 170, you think they Meant ? Only 
 and 211. that before Adrian? And what 
 
 Do you not know that the Catholick Church is it which 
 Church of England owns the the Church of England Prays 
 four fir & General Councils, which for Daily in her Liturgy? Is it 
 Eftablifh thofe Doctrines you that which has been Extind 
 have Difputed againft ? And ever fince Adrian ? 
 they were long after Adrian^ This is Mr. Clenden\ firft 
 fince which Time you bid A- Offence againft this ACt^ that 
 dbu to the true Faith and is, in Print. And the Penalty 
 the Cathdick Church. of that (as he fets it down, 
 
 (ID.) You are Sunk below p. 2.) is, to be Incapable of any 
 Arianifm^ into the very Dvegs Office or Employment. But this 
 of Socinianifm, you allow the will do Mr. Clendon little Hurt, 
 Son of God no Exigence with who is better known in Sheer- 
 His Father before He took Lane than in Westminster-Hall. 
 
 E>2 And
 
 ( ao ) . 
 
 And if they Uave him but his thefe Catholick Church Men had 
 Office of 'Reader at the Trum- their Fling at the Late P iota and 
 fet to Propagate his Religion^ Learned Bijlttp?, of Ely, Dr. Pa- 
 he is in his Kingdom! *<\ trickj for the fir/I Part of his 
 
 (u.);But to Compleat his WITNESSES To CHRISTIANA 
 
 CHARACTER he lets us know TY. 
 
 that he .is a Wloigg too. But But he fpends from p. 202 
 
 that is no great News, for all to p. 207. Upon the prefect 
 
 Deists are foj 1 will not fay \ArMBIfhof of Canterbury, ku 
 
 all Wbtgs are Deitts^ but the Grace, who (fays Mr. Clen- 
 
 Exceptions are not Many, and don) in his younger Time -wrote 
 
 I will not be bonnd to Name a moft Excellent Difcourfe of 
 
 them. He brings High and IDOLATRY, whkh he goes on 
 
 Low Church into this Difpute, Explaining to p. 207. where 
 
 p. 216. And fpeaking of thofe he fays, And hi* Grace tells u* 
 
 who Adhere to the Primitive further^ that they who ftifly oppo- 
 
 and Catholick Church^ he fays, fed the Miniftration of the \oyo< 
 
 Surely they mttft be the HIGH r Son, gave Sufpicion to Jealous 
 
 CHURCH that if fo much talked Heads- as if they looked towards 
 
 of. Then he brings in thofe RACOVIA. Then adds, To come 
 
 whofe Doflrine is Authenticated at thi* has been the Occafion of 
 
 by the Laws of the Land, and my Digreflion all this while ; 
 
 calls thefe Our Mother the That 1 might take Notice that 
 
 Church of England, and fays, his Grace in thofe Days did Ob- 
 
 thefe must be the Lo w CHURCH, fetve and was Aware of the 
 
 If they gave him a Fee to then Common Calumny o/Soci- 
 
 Plead thus for them, he has NI A NISM, as well a> others* And, 
 
 well Deferv'd it ! Mr. Cltndon, if you had thought 
 
 (12.) But he Singles out there had been Nothing of 
 
 fome to Commend more Efpe- it in thofe Words of his Grace, 
 
 cially, thofe particularly who which you have been at fo 
 
 have had the Honour to be much Pains to Pick out, we 
 
 Sufpeded of Socinianifm. He had not heard of it from you. 
 
 fays, p. 201, 202- That Dr. But you think thefe Words 
 
 Tiilotfon, the Late Excellent Arch- of his do look as if he ftifly 
 
 fiiflwp of Canterbury, the Good Opposed the Miniftration "of 
 
 Man .was Reflefled upon^ becaufe the AO^O? or Son of God, in 
 
 he was fo Ingenious as to own the the Creation of the World^ 
 
 SociNiAN Writers to he Fair and the Manifeftations or Ap- 
 
 and Civil Adverfaries y and to pearances of God in the Old 
 
 Argue with Smartnefs and Sub- Teftament^ particularly that up- 
 
 tilty, &c. And he fkys> That on Mount Sinai at the Giving 
 
 of
 
 of the *tP, contrary to the 
 Current of the Primitive Fa- 
 thers. Only that as you fay 
 in the following Words, Hi* 
 Grace Manag d that Difcourfe 
 with fo much Learning and Cau- 
 tion, that he -was Proof against 
 all their Reproaches of that kind. 
 What Service you have done 
 his Grace by this Vindication, 
 I know not. But you think 
 it for his Honour ! And you 
 are Fond of it, you are at 
 him again, p. 212. and fay, 
 jts for the other Matter of the 
 hoyo<; delivering the Law to Mo- 
 fes, his Grace tells us it ivas 
 Branded by Grotius for an Er- 
 ror. Now to the Next. You 
 go on p. 214. 
 
 " I will add but one In- 
 et ftance more touching this fo 
 cl frequent Calumny of Soci- 
 " nianifin. The prefent Great 
 " and Learned Bilhop of Sa- 
 u rum, becaufe in his Dif- 
 " courfe to his Clergy, and 
 " in his Expofition of the 39 
 " Articles, he dropt fome Ex- 
 " preffions that were out of 
 " the Common Road of our 
 " Syftematical Divines, how 
 " fiercely was he Attack'd by 
 " the Re&or of Kilmington on 
 u the one hand, and the Exa- 
 " miner of his Second .Article 
 * c on the other, and by both 
 4t Charged with Socinianifm ? 
 
 He fays ^Nothing in Defence 
 of this Good Biftiop, but leaves 
 him to Himfelf. And goes on 
 to Leflen the Prejudices againft 
 Socinianifm. 
 
 (i3/j But to any who fpeak 
 againft Soeinianifm^ you (hall 
 fee how he keeps his Patience 
 and fpends his Wit ! Thus he 
 treats the Reverend Mr. Hilt 
 of Kilmington, p. 133. for his 
 Daring to Oppofe the Bifhop 
 of Sarum as to Socinianifm, he 
 lays of him, His Sour Crabbed 
 j4fpett) apparent in hi-s Jnfolent 
 and Ahufive Language to that 
 Great Bijhop t whoje Books he is 
 
 not-worthy to Carry after him 
 
 The Old Man is Angry! But 
 I muft give you a whole Pa- 
 ragraph of his upon the fame 
 Subject, p. 134. beeaufe it is 
 Singular for Wit and Temper, 
 and Variety of Thought ! Thus. 
 
 " Next, we have in his 
 <c Looks and Lineaments, and 
 u Gravity of Feature^ which 
 ** fpeaks him Able for pro- 
 " found Theory and penetrating 
 " Thought, by which he can 
 " See as far into a Mill-Stone 
 " as any Man, and Compre- 
 tc hends the three Hypoftafes 
 " as well as thofe that lived 
 tc Fourteen or Fifteen Hun- 
 tc dred Years ago, or more. 
 tc Add to -this, that he has 
 c ' withal a Sharpnefs and Sa r 
 ct gacity of Phi^ from whence 
 " he is able Craftily to Se- 
 u crete and Conceal his three 
 <c Hypostafes under his Techni- 
 t( cal or Artificial Terra, Per- 
 tc fans. Thus is his Difcourfe 
 tc a perfeft Copy of his Com-' 
 tc tenance, and fo doth truly 
 a fignifie his own Perfon, (for 
 ' { you know Phiz, is Perfon) I 
 
 " will
 
 ct will add but one Word fur- 
 " ther, and that is what the 
 <c Gentleman fays of himfelf 
 " in his Preface, (viz..) That 
 " thefe Points had then em- 
 " ploy'd his Theories for a- 
 " bove Seven and Twenty 
 " Years. Alas for him, Poor 
 " Gentleman! He fpent his 
 u Time to good Purpofe, did 
 " he not? 
 
 You are Cruel Sharp upon 
 him, Mr. Clendon ! Befides your 
 Hey-day , Hey-day ', which you 
 often give as an Anfwer to his 
 Arguments! as p. 129, &c. 
 And was not his 27 Years as 
 well fpent, as if he had em- 
 ploy'd 70 to lofe Common Senfe 
 in your Philofophy \ But after all, 
 his Phiz, is better than your own, 
 Mr. Clendon > and therefore he is 
 ,a better Pevfon by your Phi- 
 lofophy. And you come off the 
 Severity of your Character, for 
 P- T 33? J u ft after ^ Soar Crab- 
 bed Afpeft, you add, But this 
 *> not without Somewhat of a Soft 
 and Pleafing Air. This was to 
 fliew how Sweet and how Sour 
 you cou'd be ! 
 
 (14.) And as you Juftifie the 
 Bilhop of Strum again Mr. Hill 
 with a Hey-day, fo you Defend 
 him againft the Animadverter up- 
 on his Expofirionof the 2d Article 
 with a Hah-ha-ha. The Animad- 
 verter had own'd that there was 
 a Myftery in the Trinity of God, 
 at which you break out into 
 a Loud Laugh, p. 153, and 
 Cry Ha, ha, ha ! Is it corns to 
 
 this at lap? As yon fay, p; 
 1 94, We fuufl not be foWd off 
 with Myftery. You have made 
 tlie Triaity of Cod as Plain as 
 that of the Quen, without any 
 Myftery at all in it! And all 
 this by your Wonderful Ac- 
 count of the Word Perfon ! 
 
 (IX.) But, Mr. Clendon, You 
 have made .no Difcovtry with 
 all your Pains. For who knows 
 not that the Word Perfon (like 
 other Words) may be taken in 
 Different Senfes ? That Orators 
 and Logicians fpeak not in the 
 -&me Strittefi of Terms? Yet 
 from Cicero you wou'd Confute 
 the Schools! In whofe Reftrain- 
 ed Senfe you take thofe Words 
 which were in Ufe before 
 fuch Reftraint or Limitation 
 was put upon them. Thus the 
 Hypoftafis among the Creeks 
 was not Underftood with re- 
 fpe& to the after Niceties of 
 Substance, Subfiftence, &c. Up- 
 on which you Ring all your 
 Changes, and would Infer 7V/- 
 theifm from the three ffypofta- 
 fes. Tho' you cannot Deny 
 but that they Sufficiently De- 
 clared themfelves againft it. 
 And again, the Broaching of 
 freflr Here fas ftill occafipn'd 
 more and more Reflridion of 
 the Senfe of Words relating 
 to thofe Queftions, to New 
 and Different Meanings. 
 
 (X.) And no Man takes grea- 
 ter Latitude in this Matter 
 than your felf. As at the End 
 of p. 109, and Beginning of 
 
 P-
 
 p. no. Where you come to 
 Anfwer that Text Col. ii. 9. 
 In Him (Chrift) dwelleth all the 
 Fulnefs of the Godhead bodily. 
 You fay p. no. / cannot but 
 think there if more Rhetorick 
 than Metaphyficks imply'd in the 
 Phrafeology, and that a Metaphor 
 from Houje-dwelling wai plainly 
 Intended. This was to bring 
 it to the Socinian Notion, 
 That God the Word was not 
 Made Fleflj (as it is laid Joh. 
 I. 14.) or took our Nature 
 upon Him, but only that He 
 Dwelt ill Flejh, in the Perfon 
 of the Man Jefw, as a Man 
 Dwells in an Houfe, which 
 makes not the Man to be the 
 Houfe, nor the Houfe to be the 
 Man. And this will make 
 Chrift to be no more God than 
 any Prophet or Apoftle or other 
 Good Man, in whom God, by 
 His Holy Spirit, is faid to 
 Dwell. I will Grant you that 
 the Word Dwelling or In- 
 Dwelling is here a Metaphor. 
 But, Sir, the Streis lies in the 
 Word Fulnefs, and to purfue 
 the Metaphor, if you cou'd find 
 aa Houfe or Habitation wnich 
 could Contain all the Fulnefs 
 of the Godhead, that Houfe 
 would be God) becaufe Nothing 
 that is not Infinite can Con- 
 tain Infinite. And therefore 
 fuch Expreffion was never Ufed 
 of any Prophet or Apoftle, or 
 of any Angel in Heaven, but 
 of Chrift our Lord only. 
 
 But when you are Pinched 
 here, you come off with Gal- 
 
 ling this only a Piece of Rhe- 
 torick ! And yet at the fame 
 time you will Allow no Lati- 
 tude for the Word Hypoftafis or 
 Perfon, as differently Under- 
 ftood at feveral Times, but Re- 
 ftrain them to the Modern Nice- 
 ties of the Schools : And yet you 
 Battle thefe with the Latitude 
 nfed by Orators, who you are 
 fenfible did not Oblige them- 
 felves to that Stridnefs of Phra- 
 feology as the Philofophers and Lo- 
 gicians. So that you play Faft 
 and Loofe. Sometimes you are 
 upon the High Rope, and No- 
 thing can ftop your Swing ; 
 Then Phrafeology and Rhetorical 
 Solves the moft Exprefs Texts 
 can be brought agaiult you ! At 
 other times you ftraiten the 
 Terms to the Utmoft Rigour and 
 Dance all your Changes upon them, 
 and give them different Airs as they 
 make For or Againft you! Your 
 whole Book and all the Philosophy in 
 it is Nothing but Playing with 
 Words. Which if they may be Un- 
 derftood in the Plain and Common 
 Acceptation, as Ufed by all the 
 World, and in all other Matters j 
 the Socinians muft give up thc Caufe, 
 and yield to thofe Many and Exprefs 
 Texts of Holy Scripture, which Af- 
 fert thc Divinity of- Chrift, and the 
 Adorable Trinity of GW. And were 
 fo Underftood by thofe to whom the 
 Apofties deliver'd thefe Doctrines by 
 Word of Mouth, as well as in Wri-- 
 ting, and who therefore were moil 
 Capable to Know their true Mea 
 nlng ; and who Delivered down thefe 
 Doftrine* to the after Age or' the 
 Church, which are ftill Retained in alt
 
 ( H) 
 
 CkriftiM Churches to this Day. AU 
 which I hope I have made fully Ap- 
 pear in the foregoing Dialogues. And 
 that it will appear more Plain to all 
 judicious Readers, upon the Dete- 
 ction of tbeie poor Shifts made life of 
 by the Adver fades to the Cbrifion 
 Doftrine. And which they confefs 
 they never would have made ufe of, 
 nor would have Thought of them, 
 but for the Seeming Cantradiftions 
 they Apprehended were Contained 
 in thefe Doclnnes. And therefore 
 were Forced to Struggle with all 
 their Wit againft the Plain very 
 Plain Reveittion of them in the Ho- 
 ly Scriptures, fo Plain, that they 
 tnemfelves do own, they would have 
 Received them as the Chrijiian 
 Church does, and has done from the 
 Beginning, but for the Contradiction 
 they Conceived in them. And that 
 for this only Caufe they have put 
 tfaofe Contained Meanings upon the 
 Words of the Scriptures^ in this Mat- 
 ter only, and Different from the 
 life of thefe Words upon any other 
 Subject whatfoever. And hkewife 
 after having in vain Attempted to 
 Gain to their Side the Primitive Fa- 
 ther* before the firil Conned of Nice, 
 now Laftly, as Mr. Clendon doeSj 
 to throw on Fathers and Coumels and 
 all Church Evidence or Authority. 
 Anl this their Notion of Contradr 
 ttion in thefe Divine JMyjleries, ari- 
 fmg Metrly from their Applying to 
 Cod the IVvrds ufed among Aim (for 
 we can underitand none other) and 
 that Strictly and Properly as belonging 
 
 to Merit and in this Senfe Adapting 
 them to'GW, and Mcafuring the In- 
 finite by our Finite Nature ; for this 
 Rcafon I began my Dialogues with 
 Removing this Objedisn, and fliew- 
 ing the Unreabnablenefs (and in fe- 
 veral Injlances there Produced) of 
 Interring a Comradlttion in a Nature 
 we do not Underitand, from the 
 like being a Contraditlion in another 
 Nature which we do Underiland. 
 This was Battled in the Remark up- 
 on myfr/t Dialogue. But I hope it 
 has flood its Ground in the Defences 
 1 have Made. And the More, for 
 that after all this Conteft, they can- 
 not now fliew any Contraditiion^ but 
 iii this fame Method I have Detected, 
 and which 1 have Forced the Remar- 
 ker himfelf to Confefs is moll V ti- 
 re afonable and AbfuYd. And yet they 
 ftill Stick to it"! Tho' at the fame 
 time they Deny it, which ii Giving 
 up the Argument. For it is Appa- 
 rent. Becaufe they cannot (after all 
 the Provocations given them) find 
 out any other Way to fliew a Con- 
 trad'ftion in thefe Dottrines. And 
 they have Labour'd it with all their 
 Skill, but cannot find it. And I think 
 no Caufe can be Reduced or Detected 
 to a greater Degree than this, for it 
 is Proving againir. them out of their 
 own Mouths! 
 
 I hope now I have Ended my La : 
 bour upon this moft Important Sub- 
 jeft. If I hare faid any thing to 
 Confirm the Faith, the Glory is to 
 God. And let my Infirmities be Ex- 
 cufed, that I could do it no Better. 
 
 FINIS.
 
 ^Ar^A/^g 
 
 A 
 
 /'"S ;-''