AN ANSWER TO Dr. Wallis' THREE LETTERS Concerning the Doctrine of the TRINITY.  
SEeing our Adversaries the Trinitarians, cannot be content, modestly to acknowledge their Doctrine as a mere Mystery, and to rely upon the Authority of the Church, and Tradition for the same; but have of late also ventured, even to prove the same agreeable to the common Notions of Humane Reasoning, it may not be amiss to show them their Error, and to humble them a little more in their pretences for the future.  
I must confess, 'thas been but of late, that any have presumed to this confidence; but as it now happens, a Unitarian is the absurdest Creature in the World. Dr Wallis, and Dr. S— together, have undertaken even to demonstrate their weakness; but whether their Endeavours may not be more likely to reflect on themselves, than the Unitarians, I dare trust to the issue of this ensuing Treatise.  
To put the Case therefore, the Unitarian having taken the Scriptures in hand, and examining thereby how he ought to address his Worship, straight concludes himself to be directed, by the first Commandment, viz. Thou shalt have none other Gods but me: But the more subtle Trinitarian, tho' in several places of the Old and New Testament, he find that One to be intended, as that we ought to acknowledge and worship but One God: yet straight he has an evasion, says he, there may be many Persons in that One God, and therefore the Commandment, That we should have but Oue God, shall not debar me of Deifying and Eqalling my Saviour Christ Jesus to his Father; and after that, to complete a Trinity, flings in the Holy Ghost also.  
The Case then of the Unitarian is thus, He dreading the guilt of Idolatry, thinks this Evasion, of saying, That this One God can have several Persons in it, but frivolous and weak; especially when he considers, that he never met with such Direction or Construction, neither in the Old or New Testament. No, says the Trinitarian, there is no such thing expressed; but the Grounds for the Inferences of it are so clear, that it needs not.  
The Unitarian upon this, jealous of a Juggle; especially when this Inference is not to be raised, till several hundred Years after Christ, reflects, whether such a thing can be put upon the First Commandment, and whether 'tis within the nature of that Precept to bear it.  
He argues thus therefore, with himself: What was that Commandment made for? What? to prevent Polytheism. Why how, says he, is that to be done? By denying many; that is, several Personal Gods, surely it must, if it is not made to deny Personal Gods, 'tis made to no purpose; and if therefore we can admit a Man afterwards to be a coequal to this God, this Commandment seems to be made but to little effect.  
And I pray then, may not a Unitarian upon this very well conclude, a Trinity in Unity is absurd; surely he may, without any manner of Contempt to the Scripture. What? is the Divinity of Christ implied in the New Testament? 'tis denied in the first Commandment, and I that thus regard that solemn and set Precept of the First Commandment that was delivered even by God himself, may surely in such case, be allowed to submit my Reasoning entirely to the Scripture, and yet deny this implied co equal Divinity of Christ.  
'Tis true indeed, I cannot say, that there is a contradiction, in holding, that there may be Three Persons in God; because I have not the definition of the Word God so exact, as to be assured, it cannot admit many Persons in it; but this I am sure, that when God has ordered me to acknowledge him but as One, and I know I cannot rationally make him more, but by many Persons, I vitiate the Commandment by an inconsistent absurdity, to bring in new Persons after in co equality with him.  
Methinks this Reasoning is so obvious, that I wonder our great Doctors can poor it over: And yet whether I wonder or not, they do: they think, because they can tell us, that a thing can be unum, and tres diverso respectu; that is, One and Three in several respects: that therefore it is consistent with the First Commandment, to add several Persons to their One God; tho' they are particularly prohibited it by it, and yet not break it.  
Nor does this Error end here neither, for our Adversaries are not always so lucky, as to see Consequences; for should a lying Revelation, (which is not impossible,) Deify more Men than ever the Heathens did, here is no Fence left. Is there Three Persons in God? why but Three? No; God, you say, revealed but Three by Christ. Yes, since in a fuller Manifestation he has been pleased to acquaint us of a Thousand more.  
And 'tis in vain, in such case, to pretend that the Number would be of Offence to us; for if we consider it aright, there is no more Reason for one Number then another: Indeed, if we once destroy the Unity of the Personality of God, I think it were more honourable to think the Godhead consisted in infinite Personalities, than one; all between One and Infinite's imperfect.  
But yet after all this, we Unitarians are more fair, then to press our Adversaries with this one Argument only, tho' this alone were enough too, to a sincere Man, but we have gone on further, even to let go this Principle with them, and to fight them at their own Weapons, to show them no such Trinity is revealed in the New Testament, and granting it were not absurd and inconsistent to the first Commandment, yet that it is unscriptural.  
And herein, would Dr. Wallis but examine, whatever he has gloried, that Dr. Sherlock has answered the History of the Unitarians, 3 Letter, p. 42. Dr. Sherlock has such an Answer; by the Vindication of the Arrian, and the Acts of Athanasius, that neither Dr. Sherlock, nor Dr. Wallis neither will be able to Answer, whatever they may do by Suppression and Reproaches.  
But least Dr. Wallis should think I tell him of an Answer, and have none to give him myself, I shall give myself that trouble, as to inquire more particularly into his Reasoning, and to show him, that for all he deals in Cubes, all he alleges is not Demonstration.  
The Doctors reasoning therefore, as I take it is this, he endeavours to illustrate the Trinity, by an Example in a Cube, where three sides, he says, make one Cube, (Pag. 11. Letter 1.) and which Cube, he says, is not to be made without all three sides, and yet all three make but one Cube, (Page 12. Letter 1.) and to complete the Parallel, he tell us, (Page 9 Letter 2.) that that broad thing is a Cube, that long thing is a Cube, in Answer to the Father, is God, and the Son is God, etc.  
Nor doth he stop here neither, for (Page 13. of the first Letter) he tells us, That that long thing begets the broad thing, and the long and broad thing, has that deep thing proceeding from them, exactly conforming it, to the generation and procession of the Son and Holy Ghost. And his reasoning upon this Parallel in his 3 Letter, page 38.) is this, If such a Trinity can be formed in gross Corporeals, much more may we expect it possible in Spirituals.  
Now I say, not to suppose this simile altogether impertinent, as I have shown it is in our Case; for our Debate is not whether there may not be Three Persons in God; but whether many Personal Gods will not necessarily break the first Commandment? I say therefore, to suppose the first Commandment is not broke by many Personal Gods, yet this Simile is most absurd; for it is of Commensuration or Relation, and not of a Body, as he would insinuate; 'tis of a mere Chimaera or Idea, not a Quality, and much less a Corporiety or Substance.  
But to state his Cube therefore more to his purpose for him, to wit, a Cube of Marble generating hardness, and both producing coldness; I say in this case, there were three Cubes more for him, and those real ones too, that is, of Substance and Quality, and yet in such case they would all be distinct Cubes, and yet but one Cube, that is, a Cube of Hardness, another of Coldness, and another of Corporiety, and yet all three but one Cube of Marble; I say, to put his Similes from Chimaeras to Being's, yet, what parity can we make between the Unity of Substances with Qualities, and the Unities of Persons together.  
The Doctor forgets, that Personation is the greatest perfection of Being, and that different personation is answerably the greatest perfection of Quality; I am sure, I never could apprehend any other real Unity than Personation, and the higher this Personation arose, the more distinct I always apprehended it; thus one Man, one Angel, and one God, and if the Doctor has found a more perfect, real, and proper Unity than that, let him discover it, and not cite a meaner to prove it.  
The Doctor should rather therefore have proposed some Monster, born with three Heads, but that, I conceive he would have seen, to have been too gross to have imposed upon the World, not I mean, that I think he sought to impose the other neither, for I am persuaded of his sincerity, in what he has done, but I take the freedom to represent my Argument so for its more perfect Illustration.  
Nor is my Answer, to his simile of Memory, Will, and Understanding, and of our Powers, to be to do and to know; much otherwise, (1 Letter, p. 17, 18.) for to my mind, 'tis a strange Illustration of a most perfect Union of Persons, even perfecter than Personality itself, to tell us of the Union of parts to the Mind, Faculties to the Soul, etc.  
So for his unum verum & bonum, wherein indeed the Doctor is so modest, as to confess, that the distinction is not equal to that of the Trinity, (p. 18. 1. Letter) so for his three Groats in a Shilling, and three Nobles in twenty (p. 42. 3. Letter.) Similes indeed that the Doctor himself seems ashamed of, and methinks alleged to a strange purpose, he had near as good have wrote, that because a Man has two Hands and an Head, therefore a Trinity in Unity is necessary to the perfection of the Godhead.  
'T has been a general Rule with me, always where I have brought a simile, to illustrate any thing, that I have form it of something adequate, and that may really prove the matter I designed, if urged by way of Argument, but these are such similes, that my Adversary had as good urge, that there are three Personal Gods, because they have three Letters in their Name, or because that three times three makes nine. In short, these are such similes, that to repeat them is to answer them.  
Nor are his Arguments, drawn from sustineo tres personas mei judicis & adversarii; that is, I personate three Men, myself the judge and my Adversary; and from a man's having three Names, or Titles, as William Henry Nassau, King of England, Scotland, and France, or a Noble Duke, Marquess, and Earl, jess ridiculous (p. 40. Letter 3.)  
I would fain ask Doctor Wallis, what it is to Personate a Man, surely but to compose one's Actions as near as one can in likeness or favour of him; is it so? then a Man may as well personate three hundred Men as three, for one cannot personate three together, and one may three hundred one after another: In short, the Doctor had as good have said, there must be three Personal Gods, because a Man can walk three ways, for 'tis the same that he represents by his personating in his Mind, as walking in the Body, and is not this a pretty simile then, to prove that there must be three personally distinct Gods, and for the Doctor to conclude upon it as he does, (p. 41. third Letter) What, shall a man bear three Persons, and shall not God be able to do it?  
Well may the Doctor as he has done, quite undermine the very Idea of the word Person, for if he had not, he could never have forced himself to such absurd conclusions, but when as he has done, he has quite destroyed all the distinction of the Idea of that word, 'tis no difficulty for him, to conclude as he has done, p. 10. Letter 1. That there may be three somewhats in one God, diverso respectu.  
After all therefore, I say, granting that the being of three personal Gods, were not repugnant to the very Precept of the first and greatest Commandment; Yet has the Doctor been able by simile, or otherwise to make out, that there may be rationally three Persons in one God? Laying aside even the first Commandment, yet surely he has not, for these Examples and Illustrations are as Foreign from his purpose, as even his Enemies can wish, and therefore, I hope for the future the Doctor will learn more Modesty, than to set up such Trumpery, to give us similes of Unions, of Chimerical Relations, of Measure, of Faculties, of Parts, and Titles, for the probability, that the most complete Unity in the Godhead may be in an unheard of manner, and not of Persons.  
The Doctor must needs have been more successful, as well as ingenuous, had he taken a plainer Method; thus for instance, Had he said God is as a name of Office, and may receive therefore many Persons into the Idea of it; and the Foundations of the Unitarians Error is this, they apprehend the word to signify the Office or Supreme Power, to be confined to Personality in its Unity.  
Now I say, had the Doctor fairly done thus, we should have known how to have attacked him, but at present, having touched his Subject so warily as he has done, we are put to the trouble to undermine his Reasonings, to buffet at him in the dark, through similes, wary doubts, and twenty other little blinds.  
I say this, because had the Doctor fairly told us that God signified an Office, we should not have been so weak, as to have quarrelled at him for distorting the signification of the word, but we should have turned to Arguments, to prove the thing; we should only have desired him, to have thrust in jupiter, Bacchus, Venus, etc. into the Office with them, and we should have been content, and let him take the Idea as he pleases.  
Nor does this very Notion fail of opening my Eyes more neither, for now methinks, I understand why it is we say, that we have but one God in Natural Religion, that is, we have but one Council of God's personal, who having all power among them, and always agreeing, never contradict one another, and consequently manage all things with the same Rule of Providence, and there is no power besides sufficient to oppose them.  
But if this be our Adversaries Idea, as it must be, if they make the Word God to signify an Office, and not a Person, as is necessarily inferred, from saying there are many Persons in the Godhead: I say, if this be our Adversaries Idea, they would do well to speak it out more plainly, that the World may no longer remain in darkness, and that we may have the fairer occasion given us, to set them in a better way if this be wrong.  
Nor shall my Adversaries confused Notion of the word Person obstruct my reasoning in this case, by his Artful falling from the proper signification of the word, to call it a somewhat; for if there be any regard to be had to Scripture, I shall show by and by, that the Trinity are Persons as really, as properly, and as fully personally distinct as three Angels; and if so, I hope the Doctor will not therefore leave his Rule of Faith because it turns Unitarian against him.  
But before I proceed further, there seems to be two Objections, that present themselves from the Doctor, and 'tis fit we should make our way plain, says he, p. 9 first Letter, 'tis hard to conclude an impossibility in the Nature of God; right, so it is; but the Doctor is mistaken, that is not what we pretend to; we endeavour to make his first Commandment and his Unity sense, and methinks a sincere Man, till he is able to do that, will have but little reason to value the rest and less material subsequent Revelation.  
And methinks here our Adversaries should be ashamed to charge us as they do, that we stick to Chimaera Ideas of Impossibility, and disregard Scripture, for pray, what Scripture shall we regard, in competition with this Commandment, written by the Finger of God, and one of the only Precepts he himself immediately delivered?  
Did our Adversaries deal ingenuously with us, they would show us where this Commandment is solemnly abrogated or explained, and not by blind Implications, thus tear up the very Roots of Revelation; methinks I cannot but blush for them, when I read their charging us thus unjustly; but I hope 'tis in their Ignorance, and God forgive them for it.  
The second Objection is, That our Absurdity in denying the Trinity, is like theirs who deny the Resurrection, (Page 6. Letter 1.) Alas, what will not mistaken Zeal allege, we neither deny the Scriptures, nor the Power of God, which they that deny the Resurrection must; indeed we can rather believe that God can make us almost infinitely more glorious. And what we deny, is neither the Power of God, nor the Scriptures; our Case is, we are afraid of Idolatry, we only beg the privilege of understanding how to keep the Commandments; and surely, if we are jealous that we are in any Error about them, we may have leave innocently to examine it, till we either have, or give satisfaction.  
In short, Dr. Wallis might as well have compared us to Man-eaters; for if there is any thing common in our offences, 'tis perverseness, and a blindness against Conscience, and in that the Man-eaters are as much guilty as the Unitarians, and therefore I think he had done as well if he had compared us to them; only indeed in this the Man-eaters would not serve his turn, they would not cast so black a Reflection, as the other does by their false and unjust Inferences.  
Nor is this the first time, that even the best of our Adversaries have shown their uncharitableness to us; nor is this the least footsteep of it that I find even in Dr. Wallis; thus he seems to insinuate a general aspersion upon us, That we believe not Angels, 1 Letter, page 16. so that the Socinians reject the Scriptures, tho' not barefaced, yet on the slight inference of their impossibilities, (Page 5, 8. Letter 1.) Indeed he would seem to insinuate, he has a little more Charity for some Unitarians; but I would fain know, whether that general Imputation, be not a ground for a particular Offence? for is it not to begin with Calumnies?  
I shall not say the Doctor has no better Arguments than such Topics of Prejudice, but methinks if he has, he might let those alone, which are more likely to harden then convince us. I cannot presume he has so mean a design, as to set up our Opinions like a Scarecrow, and then make sport by pelting of them; and yet whether he designs so or no, that must be the effect of the Basis of an Opinion so exposed.  
I am not concerned that he cannot think us Orthodox Christians, Page 1. Letter 1. or that he can say, Socinus, or any other Author, has dropped imprudent words; tho' I must confess, some of those he has quoted against him, no Protestant 
Nota, These Quotations and the Texts, as they relate to the Socinians, I do not meddle with, out leave them to his learned Adversary before the Socinian to handle them.  I should think should be angry with him, for Page 45. Letter 3. but I am concerned at his general uncharitable Charges Page 48. Letter 3. that he should say, That we will not believe even what God says, Letter 1. Page 19 I am sure a Refiection, he would very unwillingly bear, if flung upon the Trinitarians, in destroying the first Commandment.  
And just such another Answer, I think, I may justly pass on those Passages of his, where he as good as declares us Reprobates, as, where he tell us, If any man list to be contentious, etc. but the humble God will teach, Page 20. Letter 1. so, bearing ye shall not hear, etc. Page 55. Letter 3. so Page 58. Letter 3. That our bottom reason against the Trinity, is because it is Nonsense.  
I should be unwilling, I say, to retort all this upon Dr. Wallis, and yet if I should, have I not as just a cause for it as ever he had, yes surely I have; but my Charity forces to hope the best, to think the best, that Truth has not yet approached him in full light, that otherwise certainly he would have embraced it, and that if he is in any Error, whether he, or his Fellow Trinitarians, I say, 'tis through Ignorance or Mistake.  
Not that I write this, that God doth not harden some neither; but who shall judge who they are; who shall say, just such a Sect? When we condemn just such a Principle, we know not what we do, and we are in a capacity honourably to make it out when we are called to it, but to condemn the Methods of whole Sects, we know not what we do.  
The next thing I shall take notice of to the Doctor, is, the Incarnation, which he says he that believes not must be damned; but the Doctor forgets here, that he writes against Arrians as well as Socinians, and that they own an Incarnation as well as he, (Vide Page 1. Letter 1. and 14 of the third Letter) If the Doctor give me leave therefore to tell him, the Arrian Incarnation hath some Sense, and possibility in it, but the Trinitarian is impossible.  
The Doctor does very well (Page 25. Letter 3.) to acquaint us of our Ignorance, and to show us that we know not all things, and that even in those things we do know, we are not infallible. A very good Argument indeed, if applied; we know not something, therefore we know nothing; methinks this does not become a Master in Geometry and Demonstration: or if it does, why did he argue further after it.  
I say then, for since he has reasoned on, I hope I may, that tho' a God in the Arrian Idea may become incarnate, according as is urged in the late Vindication against Dr. Sherlock; yet, for the Supreme God to become incarnate, is impossible, absurd, and blasphemy to say. Pray Sir, what do you make of God, a variable, changeable, dying thing? In short, if such be your God, 'tis not only against your own Attributes of him, which call him Immortal, but against all the known and acknowledged Principles of the Light of Nature.  
Forsooth, you can allow one side of your Cube to be foiled, (Page 34. Letter 3.) that is, one of your God's to die; and if you can one, why not all? And what a World we shall have then. No, but you say all can't; And why not? that which is mortal in the parts, is mortal in the whole; and till you degrade the Son's Coequality, you will make me afraid that one time or other the whole God may die too.  
In short, Sir, you must excuse me; that I do not search further into these Reasonings, but refer you to that Answer, I mentioned before to Dr. Sherlock. I must confess, 'tis not pleasant to me, to unravel into continual Absurdities, and tho' in Charity I would not omit to give you and the world due Information in such case; yet my own sense bids me me put yourself and others to this further Reference, that I might be the better spared pains, and you satisfied.  
But lest I should seem pretendedly to refer my Reader, and to leave the Doctor's Objections unanswered, I shall at least descend a lsttle further after them, and then I am sure I shall have done enough, when I can honestly think to myself I have omitted nothing in his Book considerable.  
You say then, (pag. 28. Third Letter) The Soul moves the Body, and we know not how; and what say you, can there be so heterogenous or disagreeable a Union, as of Soul and Body; material and immaterial possible, and should this be impossible with God? A formidable Objection indeed; we do not doubt that God cannot move Matter; but we doubt whether God can die, or suffer, joined with Matter; we doubt whether that Man could be a God too, that could cry out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me upon the Cross.  
Just thus, as it were at cross purposes, our Adversaries assault us, we insist on one thing, they allege another; they tell us of the Suffering, Death, and Merits of a God to Redeem them; and when we tell them, to say, that the Supreme God can be altered, much less suffer or die, 'tis Blasphemy: they answer us, What cannot God move a Body or Matter, as well as a Soul?  
No; Dr. Wallis knows no impossibility, to have one side of his infinite Cube or Godhead foiled, (pag. 34, 35. Third Letter). He knows no absurdity, in reducing Infinite Power to the weakness of an Infant; and that too, in an infinite Power, that another time he sholl say is Immortal. Good God how happy should I be, had I but a pair of Spectacles to see these things too.  
A second Objection of the Doctor's in this, I take to be, That an Atheist can puzzle us in the same manner, with an, Ex nihilo, nihil fit: And the manner of God's making the World, as how it was possible, first to make something out of nothing: And thus by a likeness of difficulty, he thinks to get of by a Problem, a real absurdity. Pag. 32, 33. Letter 3.  
Alas, the Doctor forgets, that the mere extent of the Power of God, is what we have no adequate Idea of, and that it is quite another thing, then for us to have an Idea of some things that may dishonour God; I may very well say, God cannot die, tho' I know not the extent of his Power or Wisdom; so I may well say, he is prudenter than I, tho' I never heard him speak, nor never received any Notion immediately from him; and yet never by that, limit how far the Wisdom of his Providence may possibly extend.  
And methinks these Illustrations might make the Doctor ashamed, when they show him how much he has abused Truth by them. But what? may be Dr. Wallis doth not think, that God in Christ was tempted, suffered, or died, but only the Man? Does he not? How then will he found the Merits on the Godhead, in plain terms, if Christ were only a Man extraordinarily assisted by God, and thereupon merited by his Sufferings and Death, 'twas the Man redeemed us by his Blood, and not God, who was no more concerned in him than one of us.  
By this time I presume, I have sufficiently examined into the Doctor's force in mere Reasoning; and now it will rest upon me, to show what a slender pretence he has even in Revelation also; indeed, at first he seemed to take it for granted, as if he was sure of Christ's Revelation against the First Commandment; but I dare promise him to prove, that the New Testament is doubly more agreeable to the Arrians, if not the Socinian, than the Trinitarians; and whenever he shall undertake this Challenge, he shall not want an Abstract in Print, to make it good; and in the mean time, I shall content myself to show, that all that he has hitherto cited, does not make to his purpose.  
And first, to show him that his Idea of the word Person is heterodox, and unscriptural, I shall repeat but one Text, which if duly considered, were not only enough to make him leave that opinion, but turn Unitarian also; but I shall leave it to take what effect it can; it is john 16. 13, etc.  
Howbeit, when he, the spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself: but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come: he shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you, a little while, etc.  
Now would I fain appeal to any Man whatever, with what words can a complete distinction of Personation, I mean of such a Personation as is in Men and Angels, more plainly be set forth, and that both in the Son and Holy Ghost? For first: Doth not this Text demonstrate each Person to be complete and entire in himself. And secondly: Does it not show them so distinct, and separate also, that they plainly rely upon one another for information.  
I say, after this, what colour can there be for any Man, as my Adversary has done, to destroy as good as the very Personality of the Trinity, under pretence of not defining, I say, does not this look shrewdly suspicious, that he twisted this Idea, to support the unaccountable Illustrations of his Simile.  
Besides this, I might add many other Texts, but as this is sufficient, and as Scripture-proof is not the main Argument, so I shall pass them by at present; only this I must tell the Doctor, that whenever he shall please to command them, they shall be ready, and at his Service.  
Having therefore cleared this general difficulty of his, I shall now proceed to his particular Texts, but yet not without this previous Observation: 'Tis strange that so known a Truth, as the Mystery of the Trinity is presumed to be, should be necessitated at every turn, to be thus supported by a new quirk, as it is; Dr. S— finds a loophole in Self-consciousness, and Dr. Wallis having destroyed the Distinction of Personation, thunders in upon us by the three sides of a Cube; but to leave their dreadful Machine's, and to return to the particular Texts.  
One Text the Doctor alleges against us is, That we are baptised in the Name of Christ, (pag. 60. Third Letter). But as to that, methinks he has been so often answered, that it has been only as our Spiritual Governors, and that even by the very Scripture interpretation of it, 1 Cor. 12. that I admire how he can insist on it.  
A second Text is, john 10. 30. to which may be added also, 1 john 5. 7. But whatever the Doctor pretends, these Texts so wholly tend to a Unity in Harmony, and not in Essence, which is so contrary to the same phrase in like case in Scripture, john 17. that that Doctor must excuse me, if I tell him he can require no better Answer; and he must farther give me leave to tell him, that what he writes in Apology for the genuineness of the latter Text, is by no means sufficient; for however he may asperse the Arrians, with that Forgery, that has been the sole Prerogative of their Enemies, yet there is no ground for it, that Text ha' ving been all along so suspicious, that many Copies have had it only in the Margin, and not in the Text, which is no sign, the Transcribers should ever have omitted it in forgetfulness or negligence.  
Another Text he citys, is Rom. 9 5. God over all blessed for ever. Right, and did the Doctor ever know a Unitarian, especially an Arrian, deny him that Character? Indeed, we are apt to clog the Title with that limitation the Scriptures themselves have given it, to wit; But unto the Son he saith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever, a Sceptre of righteousness is the Sceptre of thy Kingdom, thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, and therefore God, even thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows; viz. Angels in the Context, Heb. 1. But under that restriction, we can be as liberal of the Title of God to Christ, as any Trinitarian whatever.  
Nor will all the Art the Doctor has, be able to bring him over this rub, for surely Scripture must interpret Scripture, and if it must, this great Chapter, which is purposely writ to declare the superior Nature of Christ, must needs confound him, and set up Arrianism in his stead; nor in this case, will it excuse him to pretend the Humanity of Christ here is spoke of, for what, is the Humanity of Christ called God? Is the Humanity preferred before Angels? or, did the Humanity frame the Worlds? Surely the Orthodox cannot dote so, if they can't, let them ingenuously acknowledge, that this is an overruling Text for the whole Divinity of Christ, till they shall instance a plainer to illustrate it.  
Another Text is, Matth. 4. 10. to show we ought to worship Christ, and that from the words of Christ to Satan, when he tempted him, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; whereas that Text alas, was designed quite for another purpose, that is, it was an answer, whereby Christ signified to Satan, that he did know his Duty to be, to worship the Lord his God only, and not Satan.  
To be short, there is no other Text he has alleged, but what deserves no Answer, unless it be his excellent Art of turning, john 17. 3. and 1 Cor. 8. 4, 5, 6. (( p. 51. & 53. third Letter) viz. This is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Wherein, the Doctor by his Criticism, as well as in the other Text, would fain persuade us, that the sole Deity of the Father is not contained in it, but alas, his Allegations are such, that he might as well say, neither Father nor Son, are the true God, and pretend that to know Thee, viz. the Father, is one Person, the only true God, a second, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent, a third. In short, this is so plain an Artifice, that methinks when the Doctor considers it, he will not for shame for the future, think that we abuse Scripture more than himself.  
But before I quite leave this Subject, there is another Text that my Adversary insists upon, to wit, the first of St. john, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Now I say, though the Doctor in this case may think hard of the Socinians, yet as he writes against the Arrians too, he ought to leave a little room for their sense, which is, may I say, doubly more rational, and agreeable to Scripture too, than the Doctor's.  
I would fain ask the Doctor, Does this Text insinuate that these two Gods, to wit, the Father and the Word, are one? or does it not rather acquaint us, they are two, and separate? If so, does not the Text I have already repeated in the first of the Hebrews, plainly declare the difference between these two Gods, to wit, that the first is the Original Fountain of Power and all things, that the other, is but by him exalted, but yet as preferred before the very Angels, that God, and Son, by whom the God of all, not only framed all things, as by an Instrument, but redeemed them also, as 'tis plainly insinuated by the Text, and the rest of the Chapter.  
I shall trace no further into these Scripture-Proofs, because I have no further occasion from the Doctor, and as for any body else, I dare presume to say, whatever the Doctor has done, in taking it for granted, that the Trinity is sufficiently proved by Scripture, that there are Unitarian Books, even lately extant, that have sufficiently evidenced the falsity of his pretences, and that not by means of wresting and forcing of Scripture-words and phrases, but in construing them with all the integrity and fairness imaginable.  
And the reason I have not troubled myself to repeat those things over again, is, that I am ashamed to see they have so little effect upon our Adversaries; for to what end is it, to run out into nice Controversies, when men have the face to deny the most manifest first Principles? However, I hope that this Reign and Tyranny of blindness will not last always; I hope in time we shall meet with some men of that Courage and Sincerity, as may countenance our Cause, and rescue distressed Truth from her Suppressors.  
I shall now draw towards a Conclusion, and as I have hitherto taken care to avoid the Errors of my Adversary, in refuting them, so I now shall do him that Justice, as to acknowledge, he writes with a Charity like a Divine, and though he is in an Error, yet 'tis with so much Softness, Generosity, and Charity, that his very Enemies cannot rebuke him for want of it.  
I cannot say, whether the first Composers of the Athanasian Creed were of his mind or not, and whether they intended the Damnatory Sentences with his Limitations; but whether they did or no, which I must confess I am very apt to question, they ought to have done so, and wherein they did otherwise, they were to blame.  
Indeed 'tis an Enthusiastic Doctrine, to damn unbaptised Infants, the invincibly ignorant, all before Christ, Fools, Madmen, as our rigid Trinitarians have too often done; I think Dr. Wallis has done what ought ever to be reverenced. In short, the Doctor in this, has shown himself so good a Man, that methinks I cannot but envy his Party, that he is against us.  
But it may be questioned possibly, why have I wrote against him then, if I had such a Respect for him? I say not in resentment to him so much, for he has the Charity of an Angel, but least, that others relying on his strength of Reasoning, should embrace his Argument without his Charity, or else I could be content, that the Doctor, or any man, should enjoy Opinions so Innocent to themselves.  
For my part, I am glad to hear such healing words, as that men have abused the Damnatory Sentences, as that there is no Anathema to the Greek Church, or the sincere of any Persuasion, let it be as he says, in an extraordinary way, or as he pleases, in short, the Principle, on whatever it is grounded, is Heavenly, and breathes the true Method to Peace, Unity, and Concord, whereas the contrary censures, as he himself excellently observes, were enough to make the Creed too formidable to be approved of, (p. 21. third Letter.)  
Therefore, without examining further into this matter, for I shall never discourage Charity, and therefore I say, let the Damnatory Sentences be annexed to the generals of the Creed, or otherwise, for it shall never concern me: I say, there is but one thing herein wherein I have reason to be concerned in at what he says, and that is, that he should tack his Damnatory Sentence to an explanation of the Church, and not rather to the Scriptures themselves.  
Nor do I write this, that even in this case too, he has not left room for the invincibly Ignorant; but only that I am sorry to see him, so much to countenance a mere humane Imposition, in foreign and unscriptural Words, as Trinity in Unity, whatever they signify, plainly are.  
And therefore hence it is, that I desire to be excused to put a difference, between he that believeth not shall be damned in the Scripture, and he that believeth not a Trinity in Unity shall be damned, by the Athanasian Creed; for surely, any Man may be justly excused, that puts a difference between the direct Word of God, and the Traditions and Interpretations of Men; and if so, there may be just cause to disallow the parallel; and as long as we stick cordially and sincerely to the Scripture, not to confine ourselves to any particular Man's, I may say Church's Interpretation whatever.  
Indeed this slip or oversight in the Doctor, almost makes me admire at it; for when a Man has reasoned so candidly and fairly as he has done, rejected the little prejudices of Quotations, acknowledged our uncertainty in understanding the Ideas of Scripture words; nay, granted us that disputableness that there has been, Whether the Creed itself were Athanasius's, or not?  
I say, when a Man can be so candid, generous, and charitable in his Reasoning, as to grant us, That the word Person, the hinge of the Controversy, is at least to us uncertain, and at best but metaphorical, and that it is no guilty ignorance not to define it, and that 'tis the harshness of the Idea of it, that confounds us; p. 62. Third Letter.  
I say, when a Man has gone so much further, as even to blame the Fathers, for not admitting these words without adequate Ideas, and defining them as he has done, (p. 4 First Letter). I say, when he has done thus, methinks I wonder, how he can justify their enforcement, and plead for what he himself at the same time, by an oversight condemns.  
These in short are my Sentiments of the Doctor's Book, and if the World think them fair and honest, let them cherish them accordingly, and in the mean time, let us all be ready and willing, not to let these Controversies be lost upon us, but endeavour by them to recover or vindicate the Truth, as she shall appear to us.  
I must confess, some Men make light and sport of this Dispute, as if it were but of a Trifle, or a Ceremony; but when they come into another World, they may know, that this is a Controversy of weight, that God is jealous of his Honour, and that he does not love his Creatures to be set up, to Rival him, and tho' in his Mercy, he may bear with us in such things, the better to draw us, if possible, to him any other way; yet than we shall know, 'tis not trifling to vilify the God of Heaven, to rob him of his Honour, and to give it to his Dependants, though never so excellent.  
The God of all Grace grant therefore, that these things may so sink into men's Minds, that they may no longer persist in such Evils, and that they may, let us all with one accord, address ourselves to his Almighty Throne; I say, let us never cease to solicit him with our Prayers and Tears, through his dearest Son Christ Jesus. Amen.  
Glory be to the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Ghost.  
FINIS.