A Letter to a Friend: WITH REMARKS Upon two Pamphlets, lately published, In Defence of TRITHEISM; VIZ. A BRIEF ENQUIRY. By J. T. And THE SOCINIAN SLAIN. By J. H.  
In malâ causâ non possunt aliter, at causam  
Malam quis coégit eos habere!  August. 
LONDON; Printed, Anno Domini, M.DCC   

SIR,  
I Have, at your request, read over two little Books you were pleased 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 perused 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 extremely regret the ill usage of those important Truths they undertake to confute: and I assure you am at the same time no less concerned that so much Zeal, as these two Writers have expressed, should be misspent 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 proved nothing so effectually as this, That Education and Interest are ; that they will put such a bias upon a wise Man's Judgement 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 persuaded there is no Man so much under the power of Mistake in the common necessary Points of Religion, but may be undeceived, if he makes his Inquiries 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 cured 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 Gloucester, 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 engaged in the Debate, yet they keep within the bounds of Religion and good Breeding. And though the Cause they engaged in was never to be confuted, yet 'tis owned, 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 condemned the vulgar Tritheistic Trinity, and the Rev. Dean of Paul's had in his State of the Socinian Controversy, with a Modesty that became a Man of his Dignity and Learning, handsomely retracted, or at least prudently softened 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 admired, 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 writ 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 abused towards those who root up the Foundations of Religion: no, nor must it be abused 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 unitarians 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 though 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 unitarians: 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 sentenced him to death for Blasphemy, and rejected his Apostles; that the Christian Religion is Idolatry and Superstition, and the Messiah is not yet come, etc.  
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 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, etc.  
How gladly would the Brief Enquirer, prove the Mahometan to be the better Religion! why else does 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 coequal Adoration of three coequal coeternal Being's, 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 All-sufficient 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 honoured (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 writ just as they have lived, like true Mahometans; and have presented the World with a fair occasion to conclude they would be extremely gratified if their Arabian Prophet's Religion were established 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 show 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, etc. What can bespeak a Man more inspired of God? Surely he was a very great Prophet, and all he hath taught aught to be owned 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 established his Religion upon firm Foundations, and taken wiser Methods—, and was 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 itself be decried and vilifyed, if it be not the thing he mistakes it to be? Is this the rare Method of confuting the unitarians? 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 show 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 Koran: 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 gins to prove from the Names, the incommunicable Names of God ascribed to him. Yet Jesus Christ no where once styles 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 Being's 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 Koran, 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, than Mr. Taylor has proved 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 Being's in a 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, than 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 itself; for if the Father's Name alone be Jehovah, so as that Name is not to be given to any other besides him, than 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 ascribed to him, which is also given to his Father another distinct Being, than 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; though 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 published on this Subject, must of necessity centre 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 Being's, 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 Noonday, 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 resolved to fulfil those words of St. Peter, 2 Pet. 3.10. which the ignorant and unstable wrist, as they do the rest 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 compared 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 expressly denys, St. Paul as expressly 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 Being's, but of equal and like Perfections.  
The Enquirer had neither Skill nor Judgement to examine the great number of Texts he has cited; but thinks to gain the point by a Poll, he has pressed 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 alleged; some I am certain are as much to the purpose as Pharaoh's Dreams, or the renowned Ecce duos gladios: And I don't see but ecce duos gladios is as good, and Catholic 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 forbidden 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, than 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, looked 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 allege 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, and, prove him and God, as Dr. A— x somewhere styles him; or guilty of Blasphemy; for which the Jews unjustly condemned 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 mere 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 acknowledge that so lascivious a Vindicator is a very improper Champion for their beloved Tritheism, that admirable and wonderful Mystery.  
For if the Unitarians are attacked, 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, though both Unitarians and Tritheists too have great cause to be ashamed of such a scandalous Author, whom in his 55th Page you'll find very busy a proving the poor unitarians Heretics, and their Doctrine Heresy, and thinks no doubt he has proved the point as fully as bis own People proved 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. 'Tis 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 Being's; 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 compared. If I must be an Heretic, 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 public 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, though 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 no value for it, but have solemnly condemned it, Nou. 25. 1695.  
But the Enquirer has now done with his Proofs, and gins 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 engage 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 shows 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 Say of all the Seven Wise Masters in Christendom, Bevis of Southampton, Crispin, or King Pharamont: 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 aught to be cast out of the Church] is a staunch 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 declared in his own Style, 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 unitarians 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 sentenced, and declared incommunicable by that very dividing Party, who were his unwary Admirers. How righteous are thy Judgements, 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 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 foretell 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 inspired 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 hearty 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, though 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 decried at any rate, and so that be done, it matters not what the Arguments are. He would not trouble himself to stand to pick and choose; or if he did make a choice, he has taken the most inconclusive and the most ill-natured 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 Vwary, it's every Man's Duty to extinguish the Flame, etc. 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 deceived this very unwary Writer, and all his Elect, if any one can truly be said to be deceived 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 Being's, 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 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 myself and the Holy Scripture too, as the Socinian Slain hath done; but God forbidden 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 citys 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, than we have three Creators, three Gods, three distinct Being's 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 surprising Proofs, and tells you in the next place, that, P. 4. The Holy Ghost is omniscient, and therefore, etc. 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 condemned 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 designed 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 proved 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 proved him God superior 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 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 does 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, though 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 writ. Or does 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, though I am sorry for it, with downright Tritheism or Polytheism, which I take to be a much heavier Accusation than any he can charge, or has fairly brought against his real Wellwishers 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, though 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 used 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 Being's, but of the same sort or Species of Divine Nature: this I think bids fairest for his Sense.  
Or does 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 itself: 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 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 Being's. For instance, in his 30th page he styles 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 Being's, 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 entirely 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 itself, and numerically distinguished from the Persons of James and John. And if you would know of him how these three intelligent Being's, 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 Being's, 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 Being's or Principles, contained 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 Being's, 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 men's Doctrines unfairly represented, P. 53. and the Tendency of some men's 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, Polytheistical, and Basphemous.  
The Unitarians are charged 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 Being's, three coequal Divine Persons or Deities, to whom they pay distinctly Divine Honours and religious Adoration, and anathematise 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 unitarians, who hearty love their Persons, but detest their Errors, if they are compelled to declare that Tritheism, or the Doctrine, Belief, and Worship of 3 infinite Being's, 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 guests at their Designs; but till these equivocal Terms in their Books, viz. Nature, Essence, Person, Subsistence, Hypostasis, and the like, are better explained, and set in their true light, we defy our Tritheistic Adversaries, with all their craft and subtlety, 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 compared, or equally adored with him (because all other Being's are from Him, and he is from none; because all other Being's besides him have a Father, Cause, or Author of their Being's, and he has none; but by the Confession of our Tritheistic Opposers, and all the Tritheistic Creeds, is the Fountain and Origin of all Being's) Until they will acknowledge this first of Being's 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 beforehand their Undertaking to confute us is desperate, and our Principles are irrefutable: though they should write in defence of Tritheism as many Volumes in Folio as there are Stars in the Firmament, or Sands on the Seashore, they will never be able to prove their Tritheism either true or possible, as long as any Bible's remain in Christendom, or Reason continues, in use among Men. But when our Reason has left us, and our Bible's are gone; they may decree and impose to good purpose, though they can never dispute with success.  
In the mean time, there is not a single Unitarian, but will hearty pity the mistaken Tritheists, who have a Zeal, but not according to knowledge; 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 glorified him, chap. 17.4. that they may be sanctified thro' the Truth, and like true Worshippers 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 unitarians, 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 though 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 satisfied these few Observations and Replies I have made, are sufficient to obviate the Scruples they have raised in the Minds of a few unwary Christians. I am,  
SIR, With great Veneration, Y. v. h. S-t, A. B.   

The Oxford- Decree Englished. At a Meeting of Mr. Vicechancellor, and the Heads of Colleges and Halls in the University of Oxford, Novemb. 25. 1695.  
UPON occasion of a Sermon lately preached before the University of Oxford, in the Church of St. Peter's in the East, on the Feast of St Simon and Judas last passed, these words amongst others were publicly spoken and asserted, viz. [There are three infinite distinct Minds and Substances in the Trinity] Item, [That the three Persons in the Trinity are three distinct infinite Minds or Spirits, and three individual Substances,] which words gave many Persons just cause of Offence and Scandal.  
Mr. Vicechancellor, and the Heads of the Colleges and Halls being now met together, in their General Meeting, judge, declare, and decree, That the foresaid Words are false, impious, and heretical; disagreeing and contrary to the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, and specially to the Doctrine of the Church of England, publicly received.  
Wherefore they order and strictly enjoin all and several the Persons committed to their Trust and Care, that for the future they do not maintain any such Doctrine in their Sermons, or elsewhere.  
By the Decree of Mr. Vicechancellor and the Heads.  
Ben. Cooper, Notary Public, and Register to the University of Oxford.   

There was added in the London Account this Postscript, viz. [It may be noted, that the Propositions , are Dr. S— ks, in his Discourse of the Trinity, and the Defenders of it; and wrote against by the Animadverter, etc.   
FINIS.