I Have, at your request, read over two little Books you were pleas'd to put into my hands; viz. The Brief Enquiry, which I find was written by J. T. and, The Socinian Slain, written, as 'tis reported, by one J. H. And really, Sir, when I have perus'd such Discourses, written with an Air of Candour and Sincerity; and when I see the Authors so very zealous in defending their own Mistakes, and find them loading with heavy Ag­gravations the Opinions of others, I cannot but extreamly regret the ill usage of those important Truths they undertake to confute: and I assure you am at the same time no less concern'd that so much Zeal, as these two Wri­ters have express'd, should be mispent in a wrong Cause; and not barely so, but in opposition to the most Natural and most Scriptural Notion that the best of Men, and the best of Christians have ever had of the Deity.

How unhappily have these Men, and a great many others who have earnest­ly contended in these Controversies, in conclusion prov'd nothing so effectu­ally as this, That Education and Inter­est are irresistable; that they will put such a biass upon a wise Man's Judg­ment and manner of reasoning, which without extraordinary Care and divine Assistance, will become almost insupe­rable to him.

I say almost, and not altogether in­superable; because I'm perswaded there is no Man so much under the power of Mistake in the common necessary Points of Religion, but may be unde­ceiv'd, if he makes his Enquiries with any tolerable degree of Candour and Ingenuity.

But when a man sets up for absolute Certainty in a controverted Point, and speaks and dictates like an inspired Writer, there remains no remedy for his Errors, till he is cur'd of his Infal­libility.

What opinion these two Persons have of their own Performances, is certainly known to God and their own Consci­ences alone: but they give abundant satisfaction to the World, that they are Men who have not temper enough for any Contronversy, nor skill enough to manage this.

The late Bp of Worcester, Bp Chichester, Bp Sarum, Bp Glocester, Mr. How.The most eminent Writers both for Learn­ing and Dignity, have written against us with the Decency of Gentle­men, and the Temper of good Christians; they make it ap­pear that they can be candid and chari­table to an Adversary; and how warm­ly soever they are engag'd in the De­bate, yet they keep within the bounds of Religion and good Breeding. And tho the Cause they engaged in was never to be confuted, yet 'tis own'd, if it could have been, they certainly had done it. But this Brace of Writers have taken up the Dispute, when the field was quit­ted by the most sober and most learn­ed of our Opponents: and when the most celebrated University of Oxon had decreed in our favour, and con­demn'd the vulgar Tritheistic Trinity, and the Rev. Dean of Paul's had in his [Page 4] State of the Socinian Controversy, with a Modesty that became a Man of his Dignity and Learning, handsomely re­tracted, or at least prudently soften'd whatever had the countenance and ap­pearance of Tritheism in his former Writings.

With what good Grace then can these two Writers of the lowest Class, who, it may be, were never taught in any Class, undertake to revive the De­bate that was given over by the best and wisest Gentlemen of the Tritheistic Party? Do they think they can say somewhat better than any that have written before them? sure they are too modest to be of that opinion: or is it because they will say and argue as no body would besides them? this may be true enough indeed: for they both of them argue and prove in that unusual Method that one may see at the first blush, that they understand not what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

They knew (certainly) when they began to write, that this Controversy, whatever others might be, was terra incognita to 'em both; and yet, which is very much to be admir'd, they are as positive and as decretory as if they acted by Legantine Authority from the Holy See, and came not to debate, but decide this controverted Point.

The Brief Enquiry, Pref. tells his Readers with very great gravity— Gentlemen, pray take notice, I write only for Truth; but I remember the time when he durst not dispute for it, and made an honest and true confession that he could not.

And he adds, (ibid.) That Christian Charity must not be abus'd towards those who root up the Foundations of Religion: no, nor must it be abus'd towards any Persons whatever, nor on any account whatever. To abuse Christian Charity would be a great abuse indeed; but to abuse it for the sake of ill Men, would still be a much greater abuse. But I suppose he would insinuate that the Ʋnitarians root up the Foundations of Religion, and that to treat 'em chari­tably, would be to abuse Christian Charity, which ought not to be done. God forgive him for his uncharitable Insinuation, and we will too; but let him remember there is not a more scur­vy abuse of the Christian, nor of any Religion indeed, than to affirm that it teaches us not to exercise Charity to­wards Men of a different Opinion.

But tho the Brief Enquirer be so ve­ry wary how he abuses Christian Cha­rity; yet, to the great scandal of all pious Christians, he cares not what abuses he flings at Christ and the Chri­stian Religion, provided he can expose the Ʋnitarians: for, abating a few pa­ges, a good part of his Book consists in odious Comparisons of Christianity with Mahometanism, and Christ with Mahomet: and if Christ be not the Supreme God, and of the same Essence with the Father, he wickedly infers, to the just abhorrence of all that love the Lord Jesus in truth and sincerity, P. 14 and 51. That Christ was an Impostor and Deceiver; that the Jews justly sentenc'd him to death for Blasphemy, and rejected his Apostles; that the Christian Religi­on is Idolatry and Superstition, and the Messiah is not yet come, &c.

And these terrible Inferences are not made en passant, and by the by; but he continues to copy Monsieur Ab­badie's rude, scandalous, and impious [Page 5]Expressions for several pages together.

If, says he, p. 15. Jesus Christ is not true God, of the same Essence with the Father, the Mahometan Religion is preferable to the Christian, and Ma­homet a greater Prophet than Christ, because the Christian Religion brings in Idolatry, and the Mahometan abolishes it, &c.

How gladly would the Brief Enqui­rer, prove the Mahometan to be the bet­ter Religion! why else dos he take that for granted to prove it, which eve­ry Body denys; viz. That the Chri­stian Religion brings in Idolatry: for there is no Christian, but the Antichri­stian Enquirer, and his Abbadie, who insinuates a Charge of Idolatry against the Christian Religion upon account of the Honour therein given to Christ. Even those Christians who are for a co-equal Adoration of three co-equal co-eternal Beings, abhor the charging Ido­latry upon the Christian Religion; much less will they, or can they be thought to countenance so detestable an Accusation, who declare for the supreme Honour and Adoration of one single Infinite All­sufficient Being, who is the God and Fa­ther of our Lord Jesus Christ.

He proceeds in his detestable Inferen­ces, and asserts, p. 16. That the Wor­ship of Jesus Christ is Idolatry, if he is not God. How! dares the Enquirer assert, that to honour him whom God the Father has honour'd (2 Pet. 1.17.) and highly exalted, is Idolatry that to give him a Name above every Name, and confess him Lord, to the Glory of God the Father, is Idolatry? Phil. 2.9, 10, 11. see Joh. 5.22, 23. What No­tion I wonder has this hasty Enquirer of Worship, and of Idolatry! I dare be his Security that he is a perfect Stranger to the true Notion of either of 'em, how loudly soever he may declaim with the dreadful Charge of Idolatry: for I would demand of this bold Enquirer, where is the Idolatry? if the Holy Jesus have all the honour and venerati­on paid him, but that alone which he himself gave to his Father and our Fa­ther, and to his God and our God, to whom he ascended. Yet this Bold En­quirer, p. 16. takes a fresh start from this very Charge, too too like a good Mussul­man, to extol his holy Prophet Mahomet for a very considerable Teacher, and a great Reformer of Mankind. How deplo­rable a Case is it, that some Men write just as they have liv'd, like true Maho­metans; and have presented the World with a fair occasion to conclude they would be extreamly gratify'd if their Arabian Prophet's Religion were esta­blish'd in England: for a good Mussul­man may keep a good Conscience, and a brace of Concubines at the same time: for they are not incommunicable.

The Enquirer, p. 16. to shew you his good liking of Mahomet and his Doc­trine, insists upon it in a large Vindi­cation and Encomium on both; How can we but have a great opinion of Ma­homet He hath taught Men so and so, &c. What can bespeak a Man more inspired of God? Surely he was a very great Prophet, and all he hath taught ought to be own'd as Divine. P. 17, 18. He is a greater Prophet than all under the Law, yea preferable to Christ him­self; which, says he, p. 19. will appear if you consider his Doctrine, or the suc­cess of his Ministry—He hath esta­blish'd his Religion upon firm Foundations, and taken wiser Methods—, and was [Page 6]much wiser and better than Christ; he had greater Candour, Truth and Chari­ty, greater care of, and zeal for the Glory of God than Jesus Christ, who makes himself one with the most High God. P. 21. If Christ was not God, Mahomet spoke more truly and plainly than Christ, had more Wisdom, and took more care not to entangle the Souls of Men. P. 22. Nay if Christ was not true God, he was an Impostor, and his Disciples Deceivers, and the Christi­an Religion is a Cheat, Superstition and Idolatry. What a terrible Outrage is here upon the Christian Religion! These are the execrable Consequences the confident Enquirer presumes to draw from his obscure, equivocal and unexpounded Premises, and has taken a scandalous liberty of publishing this Raillery upon the Christian Religion in a Chistian Nation, and with his own name in the Title Page: Are these the Fruits of his Zeal and his Orthodoxy? Must Christianity it self be decry'd and vilify'd, if it be not the thing he mistakes it to be? Is this the rare Me­thod of confuting the Ʋnitarians? this will rather serve to confirm 'em in this Truth, That they and the Christian Religion must stand and fall together; and he that designs to confute them and what they maintain, does in effect un­dertake nothing less than a Confutation of Jesus Christ, and the Divine Writ­ings of the New Testament.

What this Enquirer is maintaining in the remainder of his Book is a full and complete instance of this: for he produces Text upon Text, and one Scripture upon another, to shew that another distinct Being is a most High God, beside him who is the God and Fa­ther of our Lord Jesus Christ; and unless you will grant him this Sense, and ad­mit this Proof to be sufficient, he'll re­ject the H. Scriptures, and give the prefe­rence to his beloved Alchoran: for that teaches, as he informs you, That none other but the eternal Father is God, p. 21. whereas he looks upon it as certain and evident, that Jesus Christ and his Apo­stles taught, that another, nay a third distinct Being, are truly and properly Gods, coequal in Nature and Perfection, and have equal right to Divine Honour and Adoration. P. 24, 25, 26. ‘That Jesus Christ is God in the highest and chiefest sense, he begins to prove from the Names, the incommunica­ble Names of God ascribed to him.’ Yet Jesus Christ no where once stiles himself God, or ascribes to himself the nature of God; and God has no incommunicable Name, that I could ever meet with; no Name but what is given to other Beings besides himself. If the giving the Names of God to any Being besides him, be Blasphemy; J. T. I doubt will renounce his Bible as well as Christ, and embrace the Doctrine of the Alchoran, which some affirm best suits with his Life and good Opinion. He finds in his Bible the Names of God given to Angels, good and evil, to Princes and Prophets: nay he himself takes all the pains he can, to prove that the Names, the incom­municable Names of God are given to Jesus Christ. Now if the Man Christ Jesus be not God, then Mr. Taylor has prov'd that the Names of God are not incommunicable, for he proves that they are given to Christ: so that it must follow, either that the Names may be given to different Beings in a [Page 7]different Sense, or that God and Jesus Christ are but one Being, or that the Scripture-phrases are misapplied, which it may be he will rather incline to believe.

But he goes on to inform you, p. 25. That Jehovah is a Name only belongs to the most High God. Psal. 83.18. Thou whose Name alone is Jehovah. This is a very pleasant Proof: for if there be another Person or Being besides the Father, of whom it may be said, Thou whose Name is Jehovah, then the Fa­ther's Name alone is not Jehovah; for J. T. says it belongs to another Person or Being, who is a Son, and not a Fa­ther: so that this proof destroys it self; for if the Father's Name alone be Jehovah, so as that Name is not to be given to any other besides him, then Jesus Christ who is another Person or Being besides him, has not and cannot have that Name given or ascribed to him: but if Jesus Christ has that name given or ascrib'd to him, which is also given to his Father another distinct Be­ing, then the Psalmist must be mista­ken in saying of the Father, Thou whose Name alone is Jehovah, and the Name is no proper Name for one Being, but is only a proper Name in that Sense that the name [John] is, which belonged John the Baptist, and John the Evan­gelist, and still belongs to divers par­ticular Men.

P. 26, 27. The Enquirer proceeds from several divine Perfections to prove, That Jesus Christ was truly God from eternity: how well he has done this, is not worth while to examine; others having done it to good purpose, and I may consider 'em elsewhere; tho it may be truly said of his Proofs in ge­neral, that they prove one God too ma­ny for the Christian Religion, if they prove Jesus Christ to be a most High God from Eternity: for if Jesus Christ was truly so from Eternity, that Jesus Christ who was so, was not that very God who was his Father, and the Fountain and Origin of his Being; but an eternal God, derived, originated and begotten by another eternal God even the Father, who is an underiv'd, origi­nated and unbegotten God; and so even in the Nicene, nay in the Athanasian Sense, God the Father was the first, the Supreme, and the most Divine Being or Person in the vulgar Sense. And in this all the Books that have been or can be publish'd on this Subject, must of necessity center at last, viz. That Jesus Christ, one distinct individual Being or Person, is an eternal God, because the Descriptions and Characters of another divine Person, to wit, the Father, who is on all hands granted to be an eter­nal God, are, as some suppose, fre­quently given to him: so that rather than they will admit Words and Phra­ses to have a different Sense according to the different Objects whereof they are spoken, they choose to lay down Pre­mises that necessarily and unavoidably infer, that there are two or three coe­ternal and coequal Beings, or Persons of the same sort or kind of Divinity. And as the Enquirer says in another Case, p. 29. We may as soon deny the light at Noon-day, as the clearness of this Evidence.

After this he proceeds to cite Scrip­ture by wholesale, and to interpret Texts in that manner, as if he were resolv'd to fulfil those words of St. Pe­ter, 2 Pet. 3.10. which the ignorant and unstable wrest, as they do the rest [Page 8]of the Scriptures, to their own de­struction.

How bold he makes with the Pro­phet Isaiah and St. Paul, is almost a scandal to relate: for he proves St. Paul to contradict the Prophet in express terms: P. 32. ‘St. Paul, says he, knew that Isaiah had asserted there was none to be likened or compar'd to him, i. e. to God, and yet St. Paul with the greatest assurance asserts, that Jesus Christ was in the form of God, and was equal to him. i. e.’ What Isaiah expresly denys, St. Paul as ex­presly affirms, that there was one who might be compared to God, because he was absolutely equal to God; that is in plain English, there are two coequal Gods, really distinct Beings, but of equal and like Perfections.

The Enquirer had neither Skill nor Judgment to examine the great num­ber of Texts he has cited; but thinks to gain the point by a Poll, he has press'd all the Texts he could meet with into his Service, and hopes, I suppose, that some amongst the crowd will pass for good Testimony; and so they do in the opinion of the Crowd: But for the Trinitarian Gentlemen that are Men of Learning and Reading, they have with great candour and sincerity acknowledged, that most, if not all the Texts produced by this unstudied Preacher, are no good Proofs of the matter for which they are alledg'd; some I am certain are as much to the purpose as Pharaoh's Dreams, or the re­nown'd Ecce duos gladios: And I don't see but ecce duos gladios is as good, and Catholick Proof for two distinct Gods, as it passes for in the Church of Rome, for two distinct Jurisdictions.

P. 46. ‘But the Enquirer will have the Disciples of Christ to be the worst of Men, for applying Texts which speak of God in the Old Te­stament to Jesus Christ in the New, if he was not of the same Essence with the Father.’ God forbid it!

But does he not impose upon himself and his Readers, by the terms [same Essence] for they may signify either one Being, or one kind of Being: if the former, then Jesus Christ will be the Father, and his own Father: if the latter, then the Father is one most High Being, and Jesus Christ another of the same kind, and the Holy Ghost a Third, and so we shall have three distinct most High Gods.

But the Enquirer in p. 48, 49. falls upon the odious Proof of Jesus Christ being guilty of Blasphemy, and fixes the Jewish Calumny in the strictest Sense upon him, That he made himself equal with God, i. e. that he made himself another God; for equality necessarily requires two at least: or that Jesus Christ made himself equal to the Fa­ther, whom the Jews, [...]s our blessed Saviour assures us, look'd upon to be the only true God, John 8. [...]4. How ready is the Enquirer to join hands with the Jews in an unjust Accusation against our B. Saviour! for he tells you, p. 49. ‘These are the things they alledg in their defence for crucifying Jesus Christ; and we demand, says the Enquirer, how any Man or Compa­ny of Men, that deny his Divinity, can take off the force of 'em.’ So that J. T. has made good the Accusa­tion against Christ, and by an abomi­nable and wicked way of reasoning, he will put a Dilemma upon his Saviour, [Page 9]and, prove him and God, as Dr. A—x somewhere stiles him; or guilty of Blasphemy; for which the Jews un­justly condemn'd him.

In P. 52 and 53. he launches out into a new Subject, and tells you, The Ele­ments in the Eucharist represent Jesus Christ to the Trinitarians giving up him­self a Sacrifice and Satisfaction to di­vine Justice; but to the Socinians as a meer example of patience and submis­sion. i. e. the Elements represent God the eternal Son offering himself to God the eternal Father, to satisfy the Fa­ther's Justice; the Son having none it seems to satisfy. How strange a Representation is this of Christ's Death and Sufferings! yet a very fa­miliar one with the Solifidians.

Let me desire the Gentlemen who are Favourers of his Book, to reflect a little upon the Character and Quality of this pious and zealous Defender of Tritheism, and I'm much mistaken if they don't acknowledg that so lascivious a Vindicator is a very improper Cham­pion for their beloved Tritheism, that admirable and wonderful Mystery.

For if the Unitarians are attack'd, and their Doctrines exploded by Men of such a profligate Life, and flagitious Crimes, as the Brief Enquirer has led and committed in the face of the World; they will have very little reason to fear their cause, tho both Unitarians and Tritheists too have great cause to be asham'd of such a scandalous Author, whom in his 55th Page you'll find very busy a proving the poor Ʋnita­rians Hereticks, and their Doctrine He­resy, and thinks no doubt he has prov'd the point as fully as bis own People prov'd him an Adulterer, and his Grimes Adultery. I should be sorry I confess if the former were as true as the latter, but should have been very glad for J. T's sake if the latter were no truer than the former. But I would feign know of the Enquirer and all his Abettors, which is the greater Heresy, to assert as the Tritheists do, That there are three eternal, most perfect, coequal Beings; or to maintain, as the Unitarians do, that there is and can be but one supreme most perfect Being, who has no equal, and with whom no other Being is to be compar'd. If I must be an Heretick, for my part I would choose for my opinion the lat­ter of these two Heresies.

But the Enquirer is clearly for the first; yet he owns, P. 59. There are few who are capable of understanding so great a Mystery: So say the most con­siderable Defenders of the Mystery, both English and Foreigners. But the Uni­tarians say, and can prove, as they have often done, that 'tis a Mystery of Human Invention, and not of Di­vine Revelation; and by the way, 'tis such a Mystery, that the Enquirer, one of the meanest of its Defenders, could not say one wise word in vindication of it at a publick Dispute: And how could he help it, the Mystery being incompre­hensible?

But he assures you, P. 69. that The common People firmly believe the Myste­ry, tho they can't comprehend the man­ner of it. I answer. The Faith of the common People is a gross Tritheistic Faith, like that of the common Preachers, of which no wise Man, nor thinking Christian, can be very fond. I'm sure the Learned Dr. S—th, and the most Celebrated University of Oxford have [Page 10]no value for it, but have solemnly con­demn'd it, Nov. 25. 1695.

But the Enquirer has now done with his Proofs, and begins his Remarks up­on the Unitarians, who are said to be, P. 60 Men of holy and pious Lives, &c which many. Trinitarians are not, the Enquirer, for one; and therefore is so ready to ingage St. Paul, to con­demn Heresy in the Faith, more than Impiety in the Morals. How gladly would some Men have their pretended Orthodoxy atone for their real Im­morality, and be accounted good Chri­stians for a mysterious Faith without Charity and good Life!

The Enquirer admits the Unitarians to be Men of pious lives; but what then, Will that alone qualify 'em for Church-Communion? No by no means, P. 62. If after all means used they persist in their Heresies, they are to he rejected: let their Lives and Conversations be never so exact, they are be to rejected by the Church; which shews they are not good Christians, and that their Piety is but seeming, not real. Let me recommend for once to all and singular of his Reader or Readers, this elaborate Lipotiwhichet as one of his Masterpieces; and I challenge 'em to match it in all the Sayings of all the Seven Wise Masters in Christendom, Bevis of Southampton, Crispin, or King Pharamond: For I'm sure that this is true Mother-Wit, and a perfect Origi­nal of his own Understanding.

But what if one should argue, The Enquirer is really immoral, and but seemingly Orthodox, therefore he ought to be cast out of the Church; Would not this look with a far better Grace than his Argument? viz. You ought to be cast out of the Church, ergo, you are but seemingly pious and good Christians. No, no, the Enquirer will reply, By no means [You ought to be cast out of the Church] is a stanch Reason at all times to prove Heresy and Impie­ty, and when all other Arguments fail, this will do: for whoever ought to be cast out of the Church, can neither be a good Man, nor a true Christian. The Enquirer and all his Friends are agreed that the Unitarians ought to be cast out of the Church; and then to be sure they are no good Christians.

But what if the Unitarians should think the Enquirer ought to be cast out of the Church, Would not this prove him no Christian too? Yes cer­tainly, if his own Argument be a good one: but his Congregation I hear have done him that piece of Justice already, and the zealous Excluder is himself ex­cluded, and declar'd in his own Stile, Incommunicable: which seems to be a remarkable instance of Divine Ven­geance upon him, for vilifying his Ma­ker, reproaching his Saviour, extolling Mahomet, decrying the Christian, which is the best Religion, and the Ʋni­tarians the truest Professors of it. He who wrote to encourage Schism, and Divisi­on, has his own Church first broken and divided, and then himself upon full evi­dence sentenc'd, and declared incommu­nicable by that very dividing Party, who were his unwary Admirers. How righ­teous are thy Judgments, O God! Psal. 73.25. Whom have we in Heaven but Thee? and whom is there on Earth that we ought to esteem or adore in comparison with thee?

God grant him repentance unto life: he is at present in the gall of bitterness and bond of Iniquity; for that reason [Page 11]under the Church's righteous Anathe­ma; his pretended Orthodoxy could not rescue him from the Censure: and without a solemn Renunciation of his former Life, of whatever stamp his religious Opinions are, he must unavoi­dably fall under the Maranatha of an affronted Deity.

Thus, Sir, I think without a Spirit of Prophecy, I may foretel the unrepenting Enquirer's Doom: but I am yet to tell you the Fate both of the Arguments, and the Author of the Socinian Slain, P. 1. who talks so much of his Wea­pons, that I am tempted to think him rather a Master of the noble Science of Defence, than a Master of Arts. Who­ever and whatever this Writer is, I wish he had been inspir'd with a Spi­rit of Meekness and Humility, before he had undertaken this Task, and then we had met with more Charity and Modesty in his Discourse: and I hearti­ly wish he had taken the Spirit of Truth for his Guide, and then he had made a better use of the Sword of the Spirit, than he has now done with the Arm of Flesh.

But alas for him, he knows not what Spirit he is of, tho his Readers may easily see that he has a Spirit of Envy and Uncharitableness; and that he has not the Civility of a Gentleman, or the Temper of a Christian, by his ill Language, and abusive Reflecti­ons in the 2d, 38th, 48th, 52d, 53d pages.

But the Unitarians must be decry'd at any rate, and so that be done, it matters not what the Arguments are. He would not t [...]ouble himself to stand to pick and choose; or if he did make a choice, he has taken the most incon­clusive and the most ill-natur'd he could light upon.

Socin. Slain, p. 2. When (says the Socinian Slain) a Neighbour's House is on Fire, or the Air infected with the Pestilence, and the Enemies of God and his Servants are in a Combination, and lie in wait to deceive the Ignorant and Ʋwary, it's every Man's Duty to ex­tinguish the Flame, &c. This is very true; and the Unitarians have a good Title to these Considerations: But what has any Athanasian or Tritheistic Wri­ter to do with 'em? The Fire, and Pe­stilence, and Craft of Athanasius have done too too much Injury to the Chri­stian Faith already; and has deceiv'd this very unwary Writer, and all his Elect, if any one can truly be said to be deceiv'd by another, who imposes upon himself by such inconsiderable So­phistry, as runs through bis whole in­considerable Pamphlet.

He first takes it for granted, that by the Holy Ghost we are to understand a single intelligent Being or Subsistence, distinct from the Father, the most High God, and then takes upon him to prove that this Being is the most High God too. We will be so civil to him for once as to admit the first to be true; but the Holy Scriptures, and the reason of all Mankind will never ad­mit the second to be so too: for if they are not one, but two distinct individual Beings, they cannot both be the most High God. Yes, replies the Socinian Slain, that must be granted me too, as I will make it appear by twenty demonstra­tive Arguments. Twenty Demonstra­tions is a round number, but one good Demonstration is as good as a thousand; and I can produce a thousand at any [Page 12]time of the day out of the 1st and 2d Book of Chronicles, as good and as conclusive as any of the 20 in the Soci­nian Slain; but then I must expose my self and the Holy Scripture too, as the Socinian Slain hath done; but God for­bid I should be guilty of his Faults.

But the Socinian Slain, p. 3. tells you, The Holy Ghost made the Heavens and the Earth, and cites for a Proof Gen. 1.2. Who I pray is this Holy Ghost? a 3d Divine Being, distinct in Number, Will, and Understanding, i. e. distinct in Person from the Father and the Son. If so, then we have three Creators, three Gods, three distinct Beings of in­finite Wisdom and Power, which is two too many for Divine Revelation, and the most evident Reason of Mankind.

No matter for that, the Socinian Slain will rather choose to have it so, than have his Arguments exploded as absurd: And therefore on he goes, right or wrong, with his wonderful and sur­prizing Proofs, and tells you in the next place, that, P. 4. The Holy Ghost is om­niscient, and therefore, &c. And 1st, He is so, because he knows all the deep things of God; and 2ly, because he knows all the deep things of Man.

The latter of these two may be known without being omniscient, and the former are known to God alone. Infinite Mind can only know what is in infinite Mind; but then that infinite Mind is but one.

If he believes the Holy Ghost is one infinite Mind or Understanding distinct from another infinite Mind, and yet knows all that the other Infinite can comprehend then this Author's Faith is condemn'd by the Universal Church, the late Oxford-Decree, and by the Holy Scriptures: but if he believes God to be one infinite Mind and Being, who alone is conscious to his own Thoughts, and no other Being besides him is privy to 'em, as every Man knows his own Mind, and no other Man can know what's in his Mind till he reveal it to him, which is the true Sense of 1 Cor. 2. 10, 11. we are agreed, for undoub­tedly God knows all that he knows.

The rest of his Arguments are all of a piece, till you come to the 18th, unless you will except the eleventh, where he tells you, The Holy Ghost is the most High God, because Sin and Blasphemy against him are unpardonable; Now this seems the most concluding and decisive Proof of all the 20 Demon­strations; nay, as the Author manages it, it will prove more a great deal than ever he design'd it should. For if the Holy Ghost be God because Sin and Blasphemy against him are unpardo­nable; then the Father and Son can­not be so, because all manner of Sins and Blasphemies against them will be forgiven, Mat. 11.31. And now let this Writer consider if he has not fine­ly prov'd the Deity of the Holy Ghost, and excluded the other two Divine Per­sons from the most sacred Order of his most high Gods. He has given the 3d a greater Prerogative than the 1st and 2d Persons, and so instead of prov­ing him God equal to the Father and the Son, has prov'd him God superiour in this respect to both: which is such a way of proving he never had been guil­ty of, had he but consulted his own Reason, or a good Commentator; and if he did it knowingly, 'tis very likely to be an unpardonable Sin.

The Socinian Slain has but one Argu­ment more that merits a Remark, and [Page 13]that's his eighteenth. The Holy Ghost, says he, P. 21. is one God with the Fa­ther and Son, and therefore is the most High God; I mean with respect to his Essence, since every Body will grant that the Father is so. What dos this Author mean by one God with the Father and Son? one Being with the Father and Son, or that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are but one single Being? If this be his meaning, tho it be not well expressed, yet it looks more like a Divine Unity, and is indeed the nomi­nal Trinity, and not the Tritheistic a­gainst which I write. Or dos he mean by one God with the Father and Son, that the Holy Ghost is a God of the same Divine Kind with the Father and the Son? If this be his Sense, as some other Passages seem to countenance, then without breach of Charity, I must charge him, tho I am sorry for it, with down-right Tritheism or Polythe­ism, which I take to be a much heavier Accusation than any he can charge, or has fairly brought against his real Well-wishers the Unitarians.

But the Author has another ambigu­ous Phrase in his Proof, and that is, That the Holy Ghost is most High God, with respect to his Essence. What, is he not so then with respect to his Person? if he be not so in Person, I don't see how he can be so at all; for what he is not as a Person, he is mot any other way; for all he is, is Person: No, no, the Socinian Slain can find out a way wherein he is the most High God, tho he be not so in Person. How I pray, not by Proxy certainly? No, but in Essence.

Now I would fain know of the Au­thor of the Socinian Slain what Es­sence signifies in this place, and in other Passages of his Book, for he seems to use it in no certain Sense: which is unfair.

The Schoolmen have us'd a Term in their Metaphysical Writings:

• 1. For common Nature, or kind of Being.
• 2. For particular Nature, or single Being. And
• 3. For essential Properties of Being.

Will this Author be understood in any or none of these Senses? If he mean by Essence, common Nature, or kind of Being; then Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are three individual Gods numerically distinct in their Beings, but of the same sort or Species of Di­vine Nature: this I think bids fairest for his Sense.

Or dos he mean by Essence, single Being? then Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are but three Names for one single Almighty Being, and the proper Notion of Persons in the Godhead will be lost in this Sense: yet this some­times must be his meaning, or what he says can have no meaning. And I sup­pose, he does net understand the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be three Pro­perties of one Deity.

But let the Author, or any one for him, once ascertain the Sense of this term [Essence] and the Controversy will soon determine it self: but he and his Authors too, are unwilling to be plain in this matter, lest the Mystery vanishes, and Truth should stare 'em in the Face.

Yet after all, methinks the Author of the Socinian Slain, has in some Passa­ges expounded his meaning, and plain­ly owns a plurality of Gods; and if the [Page 14]Reader considers what he says, and how he speaks in some places, he will see there is no Reason to doubt of it.

I will grant that he sometimes for­gets himself, and speaks of Almighty God as one single Being: but his whole Book will correct that meaning; for he contends throughout, that religious Worship and Adoration are equally due, and to be paid to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and in all places speaks of these three as three distinct individual Beings. For instance, in his 30th page he stiles the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Intelligent Almighty Prin­ciples of Operation, who created the Hea­vens and the Earth.

In Page 31, 32, 33, 36. these three are spoken of as so many distinct Be­ings, in as plain terms as the Wit of Man can express it; and how wary so­ever other Writers have been, the So­cinian Slain will not and cannot but be understood in every Page of his Book discoursing of the Holy Ghost, as a real, proper, and absolute Person in the Dei­ty, really and intirely distinct from the Persons of the Father, and the Son, in as true and proper a sense as the Per­son of Peter is complete in it self, and numerically distinguish'd from the Per­sons of James and John. And if you would know of him how these three intelligent Beings, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one; he frequently inculcates this Answer, That they are one in Essence, and one in Nature, or of one Divine Essence, and of one Divine Na­ture: which is just the same reply that every Body makes to this Question, In what sense may Peter, James and John, three distinct intelligent Beings, be said to be one? Why the Answer is, They are one in Essence, or they are one in Nature; or they are of one human Essence, and of one human Nature. Now 'tis plain that Divine Essence and Nature, as well as human Essence and Nature, are abstract Terms in such Pas­sages as these, and signify common Na­ture, or sort of Being, comprehending divers particulars, or several Individu­als under it.

The Soc. Slain therefore, and all his Party are for a Specific Trinity of three Formal, Individual, Intelligent, Almighty Beings or Principles, con­tain'd under one common Nature, or of one divine sort or kind of Being. And can any thing be more formal and palpable Tritheism than this? He dis­putes for a numerical Distinction of these three, and asserts only a specifi­cal Unity: nay, he asserts the equa­lity of these three Almighty Beings, and maintains an equal Right that all the Divine Three, or the three coequal Gods have to our religious Worship and Adoration, p. 19, 30, 36. ad fi­nem. And when this is the Sense and Language of all his Book, can he with any reason take it unkindly if he be understood to teach and main­tain the Doctrine of three Almighty Gods? In short, if that be not his Sense, all he writes and says must be Nonsense, how orthodox soever it may be thought by his Favourers. And whatever may be the Issue of some Mens Doctrines unfairly represented, P. 53. and the Tendency of some Mens Opinions untruly and disingenuously sta­ted: 'tis as evident as any thing can be, that this Writer's Doctrines and Opinions are in themselves, and in their own nature, Heretical, Antichri­stian, [Page 15]Polytheistical, and Basphemous.

The Unitarians are charg'd without Reason, and without Scripture by their Adversaries, with teaching Doctrines that lead to Infidelity and Atheism: Would to God this detestable Charge were no more true, when brought a­gainst the Socinian Slain and his Trithe­istic Brethren! But whilst they conti­nue to hold and profess that there are three infinite Minds, three eternal Prin­ciples, three Almighty Creators, three distinct individual most perfect Beings, three coequal Divine Persons or Deities, to whom they pay distinctly Divine Ho­nours and religious Adoration, and ana­thematize and persecute to the death, when the State permits 'em, all others of a diffe­rent Opinion: They must excuse all the thinking and considerate part of Man­kind from embracing their Faith, and believing their Contradictions.

And the Tritheists must pardon the Ʋnitarians, who heartily love their Per­sons, but detest their Errors, if they are compell'd to declare that Tritheism, or the Doctrine, Belief, and Worship of 3 infinite Beings, Minds, or Gods, with distinct and coequal Veneration, is no Scripture-Doctrine, no Scripture-Faith, no Scripture-worship; but a hor­rible abuse of the true Christian Religi­on, a violation of the Law of Nature, a stumbling-block to the Jews and Ma­hometans, and a revival of Polytheism, or a plurality of Gods.

And 'tis in vain for the most learned Tritheists, and much more vain for these illiterate Tritheists, to set about the con­futing us, with one Book and Pamphlet after another. We know what they can say, and what they dare not say: We see what they drive at, and guess at their Designs; but till these equivocal Terms in their Books, viz. Nature, Essence, Person, Subsistence, Hypostasis, and the like, are better explain'd, and set in their true light, we defy our Tritheistic Ad­versaries, with all their craft and sub­tilty, to purge themselves and their Wri­tings from Sophistry and Equivocation.

And until they confess one infinite Mind, or intelligent Being, even the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to be the most High God, and that no other Being is to be compar'd, or equally ador'd with him (because all other Beings are from Him, and he is from none; because all other Beings be­sides him have a Father, Cause, or Au­thor of their Beings, and he has none; but by the Confession of our Tritheistic Opposers, and all the Tritheistic Creeds, is the Fountain and Origin of all Beings) Until they will acknowledge this first of Beings to be the most High and Supreme God, or God in the chief­est Sense, and give Him peculiar Ho­nour and Adoration as such: We will tell 'em before-hand their Undertaking to confute us is desperate, and our Principles are irrefutable: tho they should write in defence of Tritheism as many Volumes in Folio as there are Stars in the Firmament, or Sands on the Sea-shoar, they will never be able to prove their Tritheism ei­ther true or possible, as long as any Bibles remain in Christendom, or Rea­son continues, in use among Men. But when our Reason has left us, and our Bibles are gone; they may decree and impose to good purpose, tho they can never dispute with success.

In the mean time, there is not a single Unitarian, but will heartily pity [Page 16]the mistaken Tritheists, who have a Zeal, but not according to knowledg; and be always imitating the Blessed Jesus in praying in the same manner, and to the same Object as he did, even to his Father and our Father, to his God and our God, that the thoughts of their hearts may be forgiven 'em, Joh. 20.17. that they may know the Father to be the only true God, and glorify him, chap. 17.3. even as Christ himself glorify'd him, chap. 17.4. that they may be sanctified thro the Truth, and like true Worshipers worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth, as Christ himself did, Joh. 14.16. For the Father seeketh such to wor­ship him, who bow their Knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto whom be glory in the Church by Jesus Christ throughout all Ages, world without end. Amen. Eph. 3.14-21.

Now the God of patience and consolation grant, Rom. 15.5, 6. that the Ʋnitarians, and their mistaken Brethren the Tritheists, may be of one Faith, likeminded one towards another, accord­ing to Jesus Christ; that we may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: And let all the People say, Amen.

Thus, Sir, have I given you some general Remarks upon these two new Writers, and their successless Performances: and tho my leisure will not admit me, and the merits of the Authors do not require me to make a distinct reply to every particular Text they pervert; yet I'm satisfy'd these few Observations and Replys I have made, are sufficient to obviate the Scruples they have rais'd in the Minds of a few unwary Christians. I am,