<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-03-12</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Mona Logarbo</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed as part of batch B140111.pdcc.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B23230">
<STC T="W">F2162</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">[ocm]12870327</BIBNO>
<VID>199322</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="1" MS="y">
<HEAD>The <HI>Arrian</HI>'s <HI>VINDICATION</HI> of Him&s;elf, against Dr. <HI>Wallis</HI>'s Fourth Letter on the TRINITY.</HEAD>
<P>'TIS an intollerable thing for a Man to pretend to Can|dour and Ingenuity, and that he argues calmly, and without &s;currilous Language, as Dr. <HI>Wallis</HI> has done, (<HI>p.</HI> 36.) when his whole Treati&s;e is nothing el&s;e but the Compo&s;ure of a Sini&s;ter Art to &s;tifle and confound tho&s;e Truths he is not able to with&s;tand: I &s;ay 'tis intollerable in the <HI>Doctor,</HI> becau&s;e nothing in His whole fourth Letter has the lea&s;t grain of weight in it, if one abates its little Subtilties and Artifice.</P>
<P>And I declare farther, that it grieves me to An&s;wer him as he de&s;erves, for fear of having the Character of a Common Railer, for when Deceits are gro&s;s, a Man cannot well expo&s;e them, as he &s;hould do, without he does it in &s;uitable Terms; and if he does that, the Story alone is enough to offend a mode&s;t Ear, and therefore I &s;ay I am forc'd to make my Reader an A|pology in this place, that he will excu&s;e me in expre&s;&s;ing what I am nece&s;&s;itated to write.</P>
<P>To begin therefore, What a mean and unfair Vein of Refle|ction runs thro' his whole Book, I may &s;ay indeed is the whole matter on't: It &s;eems a <HI>Socinian</HI> wrote again&s;t him, and I as an <HI>Arrian</HI> wrote again&s;t him; and the <HI>Doctor</HI> upon this fancies the <HI>Socinian</HI> turn'd <HI>Arrian,</HI> and then all along in his Di&s;cour&s;e, &s;et|ting up the two Opinions together for his Mark, &s;huffles them together, ridicules the Medly, and in the end ingenuou&s;ly clo&s;es all with what a Turn-Coat of an Adver&s;ary he has met with.</P>
<P>I &s;hall not repeat his words about it, becau&s;e they are too ma|ny, and fitter to be read in his Book it&s;elf, where, if the Reader will plea&s;e to ca&s;t an eye, he will find his two la&s;t Paragrahs, his Clo&s;e, <HI>p.</HI> 37, 38. incomparably witty upon it.</P>
<P>But, I &s;ay, is not this a mo&s;t ingenuous, a mo&s;t fair and cha|ritable Method? and does it not become Dr. <HI>Wallis?</HI> Dr. <HI>Sher|lock</HI> had twenty An&s;wers again&s;t him near about his <HI>Ca&s;e of Alle|giance,</HI> &amp;c. among&s;t the re&s;t Mr. <HI>Parkin&s;on</HI>'s was one; I &s;ay, had it not been very plea&s;ant for Dr. <HI>Sherlock</HI> to have rak'd up all the Ab&s;urdities and Contradictions in the&s;e twenty An&s;wers, and to have flung them upon Mr. <HI>Parkin&s;on;</HI> I &s;ay, would it not have been plea&s;ant for the <HI>Doctor</HI> to have charg'd him for being a Turn-Coat, and to write Contradiction, becau&s;e &s;uch things might po&s;&s;ibly be found among the twenty An&s;wers.</P>
<PB N="2" REF="2">
<P>Now, I &s;ay, if this would be plea&s;ant, I might add ridiculous, in Dr. <HI>S.</HI> what is it in Dr. <HI>Wallis?</HI> I declare I am neither the <HI>Socinian,</HI> nor his Friend that a&s;&s;i&s;ted in his fir&s;t Book; nay, I declare I never was a <HI>Socinian</HI> in my life, no more then the <HI>Do|ctor;</HI> and why then all this upon me?</P>
<P>Yes, the <HI>Doctor</HI> &s;ays, I do not &s;ay that I am not the <HI>Socini|an,</HI> p. 1. very plea&s;ant. I write my Book quite on another Hypothe&s;is, I give it a Title as if it were to &s;tand by its &s;elf, as a new An&s;wer, and not to Vindicate the <HI>Socinian;</HI> nay, I plain|ly in it leave the <HI>Socinian</HI> in what peculiarly belongs to him, to Vindicate him&s;elf; and yet the <HI>Doctor</HI> for all this, for the Je&s;ts &s;ake, mu&s;t &s;till fancy I am the <HI>Socinian</HI> in Ma&s;querade. Good God! what will not &s;ome Men write, rather than not &s;hew their Wit.</P>
<P>Nor is it le&s;s plea&s;ant, to &s;ee what a world of mouldring Ar|guments he has rai&s;ed totteringly, on this rotten Foundation for|&s;ooth, I am not willing to enquire into his <HI>Socinian</HI> Quotations: I &s;ay I am not concern'd if any Man has dropt imprudent words, <HI>p.</HI> 2, 3. and the <HI>Doctor</HI> takes this for a Point granted: &s;urely the <HI>Doctor</HI> has purchas'd an E&s;tate in <HI>Utopia</HI> lately, and that 'tis makes him &s;o &s;trong in his Imaginations, el&s;e how &s;hould he expect I &s;hould defend what he quotes from <HI>Socinus,</HI> more then what he writes him&s;elf.</P>
<P>An <HI>Arrian</HI> is as much a <HI>Trinitarian</HI> as a <HI>Socinian,</HI> and there|fore I think I may ju&s;tly refu&s;e the <HI>Doctor</HI> that &s;atisfaction, and yet not, I &s;ay, that the <HI>Doctor</HI> has the Point given him on <HI>Soci|nus</HI> neither, but 'tis not my bu&s;ine&s;s to defend him; and if that will not give the <HI>Doctor</HI> &s;atisfaction, he mu&s;t go look for it, for I declare I &s;hall not trouble my&s;elf to &s;ee what <HI>Socinus</HI> has wrote upon the Matter, whether <HI>pro</HI> or <HI>con.</HI></P>
<P>Ju&s;t &s;uch another Point, <HI>p.</HI> 6. he triumphs in, That I do not vindicate <HI>Socinus</HI> from his denying the Immortality of the Soul, <HI>p.</HI> 4. Ala&s;s poor <HI>Doctor!</HI> I never &s;ub&s;crib'd Articles to <HI>Socinus</HI> yet, and &s;hall no more enquire what he &s;ays, then the <HI>Molini&s;ts</HI> do; but whatever the <HI>Doctor</HI> triumphs in this matter, may be his old <HI>Socinian</HI> Adver&s;ary may at la&s;t take up the Cudgels again&s;t him, and &s;hew him he does not deal &s;o fairly with <HI>Socinus</HI> as he &s;hould neither: But whether he does or no, the <HI>Doctor</HI> &s;hant gain that Point upon me, as to per&s;wade me it concerns me.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Doctor</HI> &s;ays I mi&s;take, and talk of his denying Angels, when he &s;aid only the Immortality of the Soul: Ala&s;s the Charge upon me I thought &s;o trifling, that may be I might do &s;o, but it &s;eems the <HI>Doctor</HI> thinks it con&s;iderable; and <HI>p.</HI> 5. brings a world
<PB N="3" REF="2"> of Arguments to prove the Immortality of the Soul. It &s;eems I &s;aid, I thought the Reflection uncharitable, but did not &s;ay I did be|lieve them; and therefore the <HI>Doctor</HI> takes it for granted, he is to Convert me.</P>
<P>I thank him; and to ea&s;e him for the future, I tell him, I did believe them, as he him&s;elf wittily Reflects, <HI>p.</HI> 37. I will not di&s;|oblige him by un&s;aying what was always in my heart to acknow|ledge; however, that I might not be behind with him in Kind|ne&s;s, and becau&s;e the <HI>Doctor</HI> &s;eems hard of Faith, I have a good mind to prove the Exi&s;tence of a Deity to him, for I have heard of &s;ome Men of Profe&s;&s;ion of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> that have almo&s;t been Athei&s;t at the heart.</P>
<P>Well, but I mu&s;t ha&s;ten on, the <HI>Doctor</HI> has caught another Point, I have granted him a thing may be one, and three in &s;everal re&s;pects, <HI>p.</HI> 8. and it &s;eems I have yeilded the Point, for 'twas Rea|&s;on only he &s;tood upon, and I am fled to Scripture; and &s;urely now the <HI>Doctor</HI> has rea&s;on to triumph as he does, <HI>p.</HI> 9. for his Argument was, Whether a Trinity be po&s;&s;ible, not whether it is or not; nay, if the <HI>Doctor</HI> has not hamper'd me now, 'tis hard.</P>
<P>The Matter then is thus: The <HI>Doctor</HI> and I are upon &s;quare Rea&s;oning, well, and I in my other An&s;wer, <HI>p.</HI> 3. &s;ay, <HI>'Tis true indeed I cannot &s;ay that there is a Contradiction in holding that there may be three Per&s;ons in God, becau&s;e I have not the Definition of the word God &s;o exact as to be a&s;&s;ur'd it cannot admit many Per&s;ons in it; but this I am &s;ure, that when God has order'd me to acknowledge him but as One, and I know I cannot rationally make him more, but by many Per&s;ons, I vitiate the Commandment by an incon&s;i&s;tent Ab&s;urdity to bring in new Per&s;ons after in Coequality with him.</HI></P>
<P>I &s;ay then, how can the <HI>Doctor</HI> charge me by this, to fly to Scri|pture Authority? Ala&s;s he gallops over the intent and in&s;inuation of my Argument, and then well may he &s;ay any thing; but to pre|vent further Mi&s;takes it is this; the <HI>Doctor</HI> and I have joyn'd i&s;&s;ue in, Whether there be a Contradiction in the Trinity or not; at pre|&s;ent then it being my Task to prove there is, I enter upon the Matter with my &s;elf thus:</P>
<P>I &s;ay then to my&s;elf, there are two &s;orts of Contradictions, the one expre&s;s'd, the other implied, the fir&s;t, or expre&s;s'd, is thus, <HI>A Man is not a Man;</HI> but this is what I cannot bring to our pre&s;ent Ca&s;e, becau&s;e it is a Contradiction in Terms; therefore let us come to the other, the Contradiction implied, and let us &s;ee how that will fit us.</P>
<P>I &s;ay then, a Contradiction implied is when tho' the Terms are
<PB N="4" REF="3"> not the &s;ame, yet as to the matter in di&s;pute they purport the &s;ame thing, thus, that S. <HI>Peter,</HI> S. <HI>Paul,</HI> and S. <HI>John</HI> are one Man, for if I have either Idea of Men or Numbers, they mu&s;t be three, and if they are three, the Propo&s;ition implies a Contradiction.</P>
<P>Nor will it be enough to &s;ay in &s;uch ca&s;e, that they are one in &s;ome re&s;pect or &s;o, for by a Metaphor al&s;o you may evade the force of the mo&s;t flat and expre&s;s Contradiction whatever al&s;o; for in&s;tance, &s;hould I &s;ay, A Man is not a Man; that is, Mankind is degenera|ted from what it was; I &s;ay it is as proper a way of &s;peaking, as to &s;ay, <HI>Peter, James,</HI> and <HI>John</HI> are one, becau&s;e Chri&s;tians, and a|greeing in Principles.</P>
<P>I &s;ay then, having &s;tated this Idea of Contradictions with my&s;elf, which is true, if any be &s;o: I proceeded to apply it to the Ca&s;e in hand; well then, becau&s;e I would be the more ingenious with the <HI>Doctor,</HI> I tell him I cannot &s;ay (that is directly and from my&s;elf) there is a Contradiction in holding there may be three Per&s;ons in one God, becau&s;e I have not the Definition of the word God &s;o exact, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Well, but what then, mu&s;t the Di&s;pute end here, this does but grant I am without an expre&s;s Definition of the word God, to rai&s;e an implied Contradiction, and for an expre&s;s Con|tradiction, I do not pretend to it.</P>
<P>No, I &s;ay the Di&s;pute &s;hall not end here, for tho' I will not be pre&s;umptious to define the word God my&s;elf, without Scripture, nor will not let go my Rea&s;oning to fly to their Authority; yet I will make the <HI>D<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter">ctor</HI> give me that priviledge, as to fetch in the <HI>first Commandment</HI> to define the word God, without the <HI>Doctor</HI> is &s;o in|genuous as to keep the Argument upon our yea or no of it, for fear of a Deci&s;ion.</P>
<P>Well then, 'tis plain the <HI>Doctor</HI> has gained no Point here neither, but is flying the Field with as many Huzza's he can; his Adver&s;a|ry is not charging him, whether the thing is, but whether 'tis po&s;|&s;ible, and he meanly cries, that he flies to Scripture, only becau&s;e he goes about to &s;hew the <HI>Doctor</HI> how he has di&s;torted the &s;ence of the word God, which is the Hinge of the Di&s;pute, and only to be decided by the Scriptures.</P>
<P>The next thing I have to &s;peak to is, he &s;ays <HI>p.</HI> 10, I make large Conce&s;&s;ions about the Holy Gho&s;t, and about the Per&s;onality: A|la&s;s poor <HI>Doctor!</HI> ju&s;t as much as becomes an <HI>Arrian,</HI> had the <HI>Doctor</HI> but known it; and when he reads it next, and con&s;iders it better, he will &s;ay &s;o too.</P>
<P>But <HI>p.</HI> 12. brings me to a mo&s;t grievous Charge again&s;t me, he charges me heavily with Mi&s;citing, but alas when I come to &s;ee
<PB N="5" REF="3"> what's the matter, 'tis ju&s;t trifling to the purpo&s;e. It &s;eems I have call'd the three dimen&s;ions of his Cube three &s;ides, and as a Faulk|ner is angry, if you &s;ay his Hawk &s;hites and not mutes; &s;o the <HI>Doctor</HI> can't bear the lea&s;t mi&s;-wording to his Notions.</P>
<P>Another thing is, I charge him with talking of two Gods, three Gods, per&s;onal Gods. 'Tis true enough, poor Gentleman, I do &s;o by inference, as I do that his Doctrine is contradictions, and when he proves the matter otherwi&s;e he &s;hall not be abu&s;ed &s;o.</P>
<P>Thus likewi&s;e there are a world of other charges, but heavy only in imagination, that the <HI>Doctor</HI> lays upon me. He &s;ays, the <HI>Arri|rians</HI> make two Gods, <HI>p.</HI> 13. he forgets that he might have had twenty from them, and that the Scripture it &s;elf makes Satan a God, but if he means two Gods coequal, which he mu&s;t do to make his reflection con&s;iderable, he writes without Book.</P>
<P>So he &s;ays I banter him, <HI>p.</HI> 15. when I write of blu&s;hing for his Similes; whether I banter'd him or not, I am &s;ure he has rea&s;on to blu&s;h &s;till for his Similies: whatever he &s;ays upon the matter, they wont help him up one Rung upon the Ladder nor one Step to|wards his Journey: in &s;hort, all they can prove is, that a thing may be one and three in &s;everal re&s;pects, which no one but a mad Man as I know would ever deny him.</P>
<P>He tells me, he has a hard Task two plea&s;e two Ma&s;ters, <HI>p.</HI> 15. Right; but who &s;et him to meddle with the <HI>Socinians</HI> now? in truth his n'own dear &s;elf: He tells me I reflect on God and the Scriptures, to talk of a three-headed Mon&s;ter, <HI>p.</HI> 15. Methinks he might have &s;taid this till he had prov'd God to be a Trinity, and his Notions of him to be agreeable to Scriptures; but no, a few Colours are the &s;ub&s;tance of Dr. <HI>W.</HI>'s Rhetorick.</P>
<P><HI>P.</HI> 18. The <HI>Doctor</HI> &s;ays his Doctrine is as old as the <HI>New Te&s;ta|ment,</HI> and that it was never conte&s;ted till <HI>Arrius</HI> did it. I an&s;wer, My Doctrine both is and was the truth till <HI>Alexander</HI> and <HI>Athana|&s;ius</HI> di&s;puted it, and who&s;e word mu&s;t pa&s;s in this ca&s;e, &s;urely tho' I have no mean &s;ence of either the truth or tradition of my own opinion, yet I think neither, I believe we are both fallen upon ni|ceties that the Primitive Chri&s;tians know nothing of; you, I &s;ay, in vindicating an unju&s;t Impo&s;ition, and I &s;etting up a more ra|tional Hypothe&s;is to confute it.</P>
<P><HI>P.</HI> 19. He is angry, that I &s;hould make his per&s;onating not to make &s;everal per&s;ons, when in another place, I &s;ay per&s;onation is the greate&s;t perfection of Unity; now this I &s;ay might be a rea&s;on|able objection enough, did Per&s;onation only &s;ignifie the ab&s;tract of per&s;onating, but I conceive the <HI>Doctor</HI> has no rea&s;on to be con|cern'd
<PB N="6" REF="4"> if I turn the <HI>Idea</HI> of the word to another &s;ence, to &s;ignifie the being a per&s;on, and if &s;o, what I have &s;aid concerning his per|&s;onating in my other An&s;wer, mu&s;t be valid for all what the <HI>Doctor</HI> has alledg'd.</P>
<P>I &s;hall &s;ay no more of his other Titles, which he tells me are at lea&s;t a &s;tep in his way, but if I am not mi&s;taken, they are very far from his purpo&s;e, and I hope for the future he will not in&s;i&s;t on them; I declare if he does, I mu&s;t &s;ay as he does, there is &s;ome|thing wanting more than clearne&s;s to convince him, <HI>p.</HI> 36.</P>
<P>But now I come to his great point of conde&s;cention, to an&s;wer me in Scripture, when I have de&s;erted Rea&s;on, as he thinks; and here I will join I&s;&s;ue with him, that if he has made it out, that one God per&s;onal mu&s;t not make one God as well as one Man, that is, if the definition of God be not to be one or more by per&s;ons, I &s;ay if it be not &s;o, I &s;hall be content to be dragg'd in Chains after his Chariot for a Captive, and to honour his Victory by being a Bond&s;lave.</P>
<P><HI>P.</HI> 24. He &s;ays Satan and the God of <HI>Echron</HI> are forbidden by the fir&s;t Commandment, and why not Chri&s;t as well as they? No, he has a Dilemma for that, <HI>p.</HI> 28. Either he is a true God, or a fal&s;e God, if a true God, the &s;ame with the Father; nay, he tells us al&s;o, we wor&s;hip the Son: But good God, what an An&s;wer this is when one &s;ees the bottom of it, and how formidable the Horns of his Dilemma are when one &s;earches into them a little.</P>
<P>Shall the Scripture make a mean between the &s;upreme God and the fal&s;e ones, as it does near 20 times, and &s;hall Dr. <HI>Wallis</HI> come and face us out of it? does the Scripture &s;ay to Magi&s;trates, <HI>Ye are Gods,</HI> to <HI>Mo&s;es, he is a God,</HI> and mu&s;t the&s;e be one with the &s;upreme God, becau&s;e they are not fal&s;e Gods? I am &s;ure, whatever I have done before, I may here ju&s;tly blu&s;h for the <HI>Doctor</HI> without banter.</P>
<P>But no, he &s;ays, <HI>p.</HI> 25. the&s;e per&s;ons are this one God, not added to him. And, good God, what a quirk that is! Are they, &s;ay you; Pray how came they to be &s;o? Did the Commandment &s;peak of them; did the <HI>Jews</HI> ever hear of them before <HI>Chri&s;tianity?</HI> If not, Mu&s;t not this be an addition of per&s;ons, and a &s;neaking begging of the Que&s;tion, to &s;ay they are that one God, and not per&s;on added to him.</P>
<P>So we wor&s;hip the Son, but how? with an appointed honour, not the &s;upreme wor&s;hip with mediation, not adoration. If the <HI>Doctor</HI> thinks we owe him other or greater wor&s;hip, he would do well to prove it, and not &s;ay, we allow it, for I declare we don't.</P>
<P>So as to my argument, that there cannot be many per&s;onal
<PB N="7" REF="4"> Gods, becau&s;e all between one and Infinites imperfect, <HI>p.</HI> 30. How &s;trangely he &s;huffles, &s;ays he; you your &s;elf own two Gods, and why may not I then three? Alas, I &s;ay there is but one &s;upreme God, and another Creature God, and but honour'd with the Title; and is that to have two Per&s;onal Gods? I dare not, I &s;ay, think this to be but a perver&s;e Wrangling, but, I &s;ay, does it not look like it?</P>
<P>As to what he &s;ays of the Text, <HI>Joh.</HI> 17.3. I have giv'n him a &s;ufficient an&s;wer already, and it does not con&s;i&s;t with my genius to delight in Tautology; and as for his &s;aying, <HI>p.</HI> 29. that Chri&s;t is cal|led <HI>Alpha</HI> and <HI>Omega</HI> in the <HI>Revelations,</HI> he regards not that that &s;tile is as it were in oppo&s;ition to God's &s;impler one, <HI>I am,</HI> nay, and that St. <HI>John</HI> interprets it him&s;elf expre&s;ly to this &s;ence, by the &s;ame Book, in calling him <HI>the faithful Amen,</HI> and <HI>the beginning of the Creation of God.</HI></P>
<P>He tells us, <HI>p.</HI> 29. that we break the <HI>fir&s;t Commandment,</HI> by ha|ving more Gods, whether equal or unequal, and that if we might have many Under-Gods, the <HI>Heathens</HI> were excu&s;able, who &s;et up <HI>Jupiter</HI> above all. Alas, he forgets that all <HI>Trinitarians</HI> call the Fa|ther <HI>fons Deitatis,</HI> and the <HI>Heathens</HI> thought <HI>Jupiter</HI> no more. He forgets that the very Scriptures them&s;elves tells us of &s;everal that have titularly the name of God given them, and we do not think more of the Son, for we hold but one Supreme.</P>
<P>And yet not I &s;ay but that I think the Son much above any of the other Titular Gods or Angels whatever, for I am not willing that the <HI>Doctor's</HI> Arguments &s;hould draw me to dimini&s;h his ho|nour neither; and therefore let the <HI>Doctor</HI> &s;ay but that he is a creature, and a dependant to God the Father, and let him make him as glorious after that as his imagination can conceive him.</P>
<P>I mu&s;t add here, that there are &s;ome things in this la&s;t <HI>Treati&s;e</HI> of Dr. <HI>Wallis</HI> that I have really rea&s;on to thank him for, as that he thinks I have re&s;pect for the Scriptures, as that he is not with|out hopes of my conver&s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter">n, I &s;ay I am oblig'd to him for this, and I will add this withal too, he that is apt to have good and charitable thoughts of others, cannot be at the bottom an ill man him&s;elf, and therefore I hope what he has wrote before is through mi&s;take.</P>
<P>And I might add to this al&s;o, that I could very well comply with him in the Scripture words, to &s;ay of the three Divine Per|&s;ons, the&s;e three are one, I believe the Father, through the Son and by the Holy Gho&s;t, in one method act all things in relation to the good of Mankind, and provided the ab&s;tract words of Trini|ty in Unity, implying a Sub&s;tantial Union, be taken away, I am <GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 span"></P>
<PB N="8" REF="5" MS="y">
<P>However, I mu&s;t needs &s;ay this withal, that if the <HI>Doctor's</HI> Incli|nations be &s;o moderate, he needed not to have been &s;o &s;tiff again&s;t what I wrote before, for I am &s;ure I did then near &s;ay as much as I do now, that tho' I am an <HI>Arrian,</HI> yet I hate <HI>Arriani&s;m</HI> as bad as <HI>Trinitariani&s;m,</HI> I mean to impo&s;e it on others, and if I &s;eek for any thing, 'tis wholly a freedom from the impo&s;ition of others.</P>
<P>And therefore I &s;ay, becau&s;e the <HI>Doctor</HI> has been thus hard with me, he obliges me to with&s;tand him to continue on to &s;hew him his rea&s;oning his ab&s;urd and contradictious, nay more, that he hath not taken notice of &s;ome of the mo&s;t material pa&s;&s;ages in my Book, to wit, my reproof of his fal&s;e <HI>Idea</HI> of the Per&s;onality of God, the Impo&s;&s;ibility and Bla&s;phemy of his Incarnation, and of the Death of God, I &s;ay the&s;e pa&s;&s;ages and more he hath not re|garded, and therefore as an Enemy I think I may &s;ay he has as good as taken them for granted.</P>
<P>To conclude therefore, I think I may ju&s;tly add, I have made good my point again&s;t the <HI>Doctor,</HI> and have &s;hewn his My&s;tery contradictious, and as I mode&s;tly promis'd in the beginning of my fir&s;t Book, not agreeable to the common notions of humane rea|&s;oning, and I will add this al&s;o, that if I have not abilities to main|tain this Po&s;t again&s;t the <HI>Doctor,</HI> at lea&s;t the clearne&s;s of my Cau&s;e moves me to &s;ay &s;o, I &s;hall be content to be per&s;waded out of my Name with my Opinion.</P>
<P>And therefore if I might advi&s;e the <HI>Doctor,</HI> for I do not love to be upon nece&s;&s;ity of expo&s;ing a Man of value, I &s;ay there|fore if I might advi&s;e him, I would have him drop his Cau&s;e, and leave it to men of more artifice and le&s;s &s;incerity and plain|ne&s;s to manage; alas the <HI>Doctor</HI> forgets, he &s;hould have but hint|ed at rea&s;oning in the ca&s;e, and not &s;tood upon it, but fled to the perver&s;e confu&s;ion of Quotations and Authority, if he would have done as he &s;hould do.</P>
<EPIGRAPH>
<Q>It is impo&s;&s;ible but that Offences mu&s;t come, but Woe be to him through whom Offences come, it were better a Mil&s;tone, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
</DIV1>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
