The Arrian's VINDICATION of Himself, against Dr. Wallis's Fourth Letter on the TRINITY.  
'tis an intolerable thing for a Man to pretend to Candour and Ingenuity, and that he argues calmly, and without scurrilous Language, as Dr. walls has done,( p. 36.) when his whole Treatise is nothing else but the Composure of a Sinister Art to stifle and confounded those Truths he is not able to withstand: I say 'tis intolerable in the Doctor, because nothing in His whole fourth Letter has the least grain of weight in it, if one abates its little subtleties and Artifice.  
And I declare farther, that it grieves me to Answer him as he deserves, for fear of having the Character of a Common Railer, for when Deceits are gross, a Man cannot well expose them, as he should do, without he does it in suitable Terms; and if he does that, the Story alone is enough to offend a modest Ear, and therefore I say I am forced to make my Reader an Apology in this place, that he will excuse me in expressing what I am necessitated to writ.  
To begin therefore, What a mean and unfair Vein of Reflection runs thro' his whole Book, I may say indeed is the whole matter on't: It seems a Socinian wrote against him, and I as an Arrian wrote against him; and the Doctor upon this fancies the Socinian turned Arrian, and then all along in his Discourse, setting up the two Opinions together for his Mark, shuffles them together, ridicules the medley, and in the end ingenuously closes all with what a Turn-Coat of an Adversary he has met with.  
I shall not repeat his words about it, because they are too many, and fitter to be red in his Book itself, where, if the Reader will please to cast an eye, he will find his two last Paragrahs, his Close, p. 37, 38. incomparably witty upon it.  
But, I say, is not this a most ingenuous, a most fair and charitable Method? and does it not become Dr. walls? Dr. Sherlock had twenty Answers against him near about his Case of Allegiance, &c. amongst the rest Mr. Parkinson's was one; I say, had it not been very pleasant for Dr. Sherlock to have raked up all the Absurdities and Contradictions in these twenty Answers, and to have flung them upon Mr. Parkinson; I say, would it not have been pleasant for the Doctor to have charged him for being a Turn-Coat, and to writ Contradiction, because such things might possibly be found among the twenty Answers.  
Now, I say, if this would be pleasant, I might add ridiculous, in Dr. S. what is it in Dr. walls? I declare I am neither the Socinian, nor his Friend that assisted in his first Book; nay, I declare I never was a Socinian in my life, no more then the Doctor; and why then all this upon me?  
Yes, the Doctor says, I do not say that I am not the Socinian, p. 1. very pleasant. I writ my Book quiter on another Hypothesis, I give it a Title as if it were to stand by its self, as a new Answer, and not to Vindicate the Socinian; nay, I plainly in it leave the Socinian in what peculiarly belongs to him, to Vindicate himself; and yet the Doctor for all this, for the Jests sake, must still fancy I am the Socinian in Masquerade. Good God! what will not some Men writ, rather than not show their Wit.  
Nor is it less pleasant, to see what a world of mouldering Arguments he has raised totteringly, on this rotten Foundation forsooth, I am not willing to inquire into his Socinian Quotations: I say I am not concerned if any Man has dropped imprudent words, p. 2, 3. and the Doctor takes this for a Point granted: surely the Doctor has purchased an Estate in Utopia lately, and that 'tis makes him so strong in his Imaginations, else how should he expect I should defend what he quotes from Socinus, more then what he writes himself.  
An Arrian is as much a Trinitarian as a Socinian, and therefore I think I may justly refuse the Doctor that satisfaction, and yet not, I say, that the Doctor has the Point given him on Socinus neither, but 'tis not my business to defend him; and if that will not give the Doctor satisfaction, he must go look for it, for I declare I shall not trouble myself to see what Socinus has wrote upon the Matter, whether pro or con.  
Just such another Point, p. 6. he triumphs in, That I do not vindicate Socinus from his denying the Immortality of the Soul, p. 4. alas poor Doctor! I never subscribed Articles to Socinus yet, and shall no more inquire what he says, then the Molinists do; but whatever the Doctor triumphs in this matter, may be his old Socinian Adversary may at last take up the Cudgels against him, and show him he does not deal so fairly with Socinus as he should neither: But whether he does or no, the Doctor shan't gain that Point upon me, as to persuade me it concerns me.  
But the Doctor says I mistake, and talk of his denying Angels, when he said only the Immortality of the Soul: alas the Charge upon me I thought so trifling, that may be I might do so, but it seems the Doctor thinks it considerable; and p. 5. brings a world of Arguments to prove the Immortality of the Soul. It seems I said, I thought the Reflection uncharitable, but did not say I did believe them; and therefore the Doctor takes it for granted, he is to Convert me.  
I thank him; and to ease him for the future, I tell him, I did believe them, as he himself wittily Reflects, p. 37. I will not disoblige him by unsaying what was always in my heart to aclowledge; however, that I might not be behind with him in Kindness, and because the Doctor seems hard of Faith, I have a good mind to prove the Existence of a Deity to him, for I have heard of some Men of Profession of the Church of England, that have almost been Atheist at the heart.  
Well, but I must hasten on, the Doctor has caught another Point, I have granted him a thing may be one, and three in several respects, p. 8. and it seems I have yielded the Point, for 'twas Reason only he stood upon, and I am fled to Scripture; and surely now the Doctor has reason to triumph as he does, p. 9. for his Argument was, Whether a Trinity be possible, not whether it is or not; nay, if the Doctor has not hampered me now, 'tis hard.  
The Matter then is thus: The Doctor and I are upon square Reasoning, well, and I in my other Answer, p. 3. say, '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 aclowledge 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 Coequality with him.  
I say then, how can the Doctor charge me by this, to fly to Scripture Authority? alas he gallops over the intent and insinuation of my Argument, and then well may he say any thing; but to prevent further Mistakes it is this; the Doctor and I have joined issue in, Whether there be a Contradiction in the Trinity or not; at present then it being my Task to prove there is, I enter upon the Matter with myself thus:  
I say then to myself, there are two sorts of Contradictions, the one expressed, the other implied, the first, or expressed, is thus, A Man is not a Man; but this is what I cannot bring to our present Case, because it is a Contradiction in Terms; therefore let us come to the other, the Contradiction implied, and let us see how that will fit us.  
I say then, a Contradiction implied is when tho' the Terms are not the same, yet as to the matter in dispute they purport the same thing, thus, that S. Peter, S. Paul, and S. John are one Man, for if I have either Idea of Men or Numbers, they must be three, and if they are three, the Proposition implies a Contradiction.  
Nor will it be enough to say in such case, that they are one in some respect or so, for by a Metaphor also you may evade the force of the most flat and express Contradiction whatever also; for instance, should I say, A Man is not a Man; that is, Mankind is degenerated from what it was; I say it is as proper a way of speaking, as to say, Peter, James, and John are one, because Christians, and agreeing in Principles.  
I say then, having stated this Idea of Contradictions with myself, which is true, if any be so: I proceeded to apply it to the Case in hand; well then, because I would be the more ingenious with the Doctor, I tell him I cannot say( that is directly and from myself) there is a Contradiction in holding there may be three Persons in one God, because I have not the Definition of the word God so exact, &c. Well, but what then, must the Dispute end here, this does but grant I am without an express Definition of the word God, to raise an implied Contradiction, and for an express Contradiction, I do not pretend to it.  
No, I say the Dispute shall not end here, for tho' I will not be presumptuous to define the word God myself, without Scripture, nor will not let go my Reasoning to fly to their Authority; yet I will make the D●ctor give me that privilege, as to fetch in the first Commandment to define the word God, without the Doctor is so ingenuous as to keep the Argument upon our yea or no of it, for fear of a Decision.  
Well then, 'tis plain the Doctor has gained no Point here neither, but is flying the Field with as many Huzza's he can; his Adversary is not charging him, whether the thing is, but whether 'tis possible, and he meanly cries, that he flies to Scripture, only because he goes about to show the Doctor how he has distorted the sense of the word God, which is the Hinge of the Dispute, and only to be decided by the Scriptures.  
The next thing I have to speak to is, he says p. 10, I make large Concessions about the Holy Ghost, and about the Personality: alas poor Doctor! just as much as becomes an Arrian, had the Doctor but known it; and when he reads it next, and considers it better, he will say so too.  
But p. 12. brings me to a most grievous Charge against me, he charges me heavily with Misciting, but alas when I come to see what's the matter, 'tis just trifling to the purpose. It seems I have called the three dimensions of his Cube three sides, and as a falconer is angry, if you say his Hawk shires and not mutes; so the Doctor can't bear the least mis-wording to his Notions.  
Another thing is, I charge him with talking of two Gods, three Gods, personal Gods. 'tis true enough, poor Gentleman, I do so by inference, as I do that his Doctrine is contradictions, and when he proves the matter otherwise he shall not be abused so.  
Thus likewise there are a world of other charges, but heavy only in imagination, that the Doctor lays upon me. He says, the Arririans make two Gods, p. 13. he forgets that he might have had twenty from them, and that the Scripture itself makes Satan a God, but if he means two Gods coequal, which he must do to make his reflection considerable, he writes without Book.  
So he says I banter him, p. 15. when I writ of blushing for his Similes; whether I bantered him or not, I am sure he has reason to blushy still for his similes: whatever he says upon the matter, they wont help him up one Rung upon the Ladder nor one Step towards his Journey: in short, all they can prove is, that a thing may be one and three in several respects, which no one but a mad Man as I know would ever deny him.  
He tells me, he has a hard Task two please two Masters, p. 15. Right; but who set him to meddle with the Socinians now? in truth his n'own dear self: He tells me I reflect on God and the Scriptures, to talk of a three-headed Monster, p. 15. Methinks he might have stayed this till he had proved God to be a Trinity, and his Notions of him to be agreeable to Scriptures; but no, a few Colours are the substance of Dr. W.'s rhetoric.  
P. 18. The Doctor says his Doctrine is as old as the New Testament, and that it was never contested till Arrius did it. I answer, My Doctrine both is and was the truth till Alexander and Athanasius disputed it, and whose word must pass in this case, surely tho' I have no mean sense of either the truth or tradition of my own opinion, yet I think neither, I believe we are both fallen upon niceties that the Primitive Christians know nothing of; you, I say, in vindicating an unjust Imposition, and I setting up a more rational Hypothesis to confute it.  
P. 19. He is angry, that I should make his personating not to make several persons, when in another place, I say personation is the greatest perfection of Unity; now this I say might be a reasonable objection enough, did Personation only signify the abstract of personating, but I conceive the Doctor has no reason to be concerned if I turn the Idea of the word to another sense, to signify the being a person, and if so, what I have said concerning his personating in my other Answer, must be valid for all what the Doctor has alleged.  
I shall say no more of his other Titles, which he tells me are at least a step in his way, but if I am not mistaken, they are very far from his purpose, and I hope for the future he will not insist on them; I declare if he does, I must say as he does, there is something wanting more than clearness to convince him, p. 36.  
But now I come to his great point of condescension, to answer me in Scripture, when I have deserted Reason, as he thinks; and here I will join Issue with him, that if he has made it out, that one God personal must not make one God as well as one Man, that is, if the definition of God be not to be one or more by persons, I say if it be not so, I shall be content to be dragged in Chains after his Chariot for a Captive, and to honour his Victory by being a Bondslave.  
P. 24. He says Satan and the God of Echron are forbidden by the first Commandment, and why not Christ as well as they? No, he has a Dilemma for that, p. 28. Either he is a true God, or a false God, if a true God, the same with the Father; nay, he tells us also, we worship the Son: But good God, what an Answer this is when one sees the bottom of it, and how formidable the Horns of his Dilemma are when one searches into them a little.  
Shall the Scripture make a mean between the supreme God and the false ones, as it does near 20 times, and shall Dr. walls come and face us out of it? does the Scripture say to Magistrates, Ye are Gods, to Moses, he is a God, and must these be one with the supreme God, because they are not false Gods? I am sure, whatever I have done before, I may here justly blushy for the Doctor without banter.  
But no, he says, p. 25. these persons are this one God, not added to him. And, good God, what a quirk that is! Are they, say you; Pray how came they to be so? Did the Commandment speak of them; did the Jews ever hear of them before Christianity? If not, Must not this be an addition of persons, and a sneaking begging of the Question, to say they are that one God, and not person added to him.  
So we worship the Son, but how? with an appointed honour, not the supreme worship with mediation, not adoration. If the Doctor thinks we owe him other or greater worship, he would do well to prove it, and not say, we allow it, for I declare we don't.  
So as to my argument, that there cannot be many personal Gods, because all between one and Infinites imperfect, p. 30. How strangely he shuffles, says he; you yourself own two Gods, and why may not I then three? Alas, I say there is but one supreme God, and another Creature God, and but honoured with the Title; and is that to have two Personal Gods? I dare not, I say, think this to be but a perverse Wrangling, but, I say, does it not look like it?  
As to what he says of the Text, Joh. 17.3. I have given him a sufficient answer already, and it does not consist with my genius to delight in Tautology; and as for his saying, p. 29. that Christ is called Alpha and Omega in the Revelations, he regards not that that style is as it were in opposition to God's simpler one, I am, nay, and that St. John interprets it himself expressly to this sense, by the same Book, in calling him the faithful Amen, and the beginning of the Creation of God.  
He tells us, p. 29. that we break the first Commandment, by having more Gods, whether equal or unequal, and that if we might have many Under-Gods, the Heathens were excusable, who set up Jupiter above all. Alas, he forgets that all Trinitarians call the Father fons Deitatis, and the Heathens thought Jupiter no more. He forgets that the very Scriptures themselves tells us of several that have titularly the name of God given them, and we do not think more of the Son, for we hold but one Supreme.  
And yet not I say but that I think the Son much above any of the other Titular Gods or Angels whatever, for I am not willing that the Doctor's Arguments should draw me to diminish his honour neither; and therefore let the Doctor say but that he is a creature, and a dependent to God the Father, and let him make him as glorious after that as his imagination can conceive him.  
I must add here, that there are some things in this last Treatise of Dr. walls that I have really reason to thank him for, as that he thinks I have respect for the Scriptures, as that he is not without hopes of my conversi●n, I say I am obliged 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 himself, and therefore I hope what he has wrote before is through mistake.  
And I might add to this also, that I could very well comply with him in the Scripture words, to say of the three Divine Persons, these three are one, I believe the Father, through the Son and by the Holy Ghost, in one method act all things in relation to the good of Mankind, and provided the abstract words of Trinity in Unity, implying a Substantial Union, be taken away, I am 〈…〉  
However, I must needs say this withal, that if the Doctor's Inclinations be so moderate, he needed not to have been so stiff against what I wrote before, for I am sure I did then near say as much as I do now, that tho' I am an Arrian, yet I hate Arrianism as bad as Trinitarianism, I mean to impose it on others, and if I seek for any thing, 'tis wholly a freedom from the imposition of others.  
And therefore I say, because the Doctor has been thus hard with me, he obliges me to withstand him to continue on to show him his reasoning his absurd and contradictious, nay more, that he hath not taken notice of some of the most material passages in my Book, to wit, my reproof of his false Idea of the Personality of God, the Impossibility and Blasphemy of his Incarnation, and of the Death of God, I say these passages and more he hath not regarded, and therefore as an Enemy I think I may say he has as good as taken them for granted.  
To conclude therefore, I think I may justly add, I have made good my point against the Doctor, and have shown his Mystery contradictious, and as I modestly promised in the beginning of my first Book, not agreeable to the common notions of human reasoning, and I will add this also, that if I have not abilities to maintain this Post against the Doctor, at least the clearness of my Cause moves me to say so, I shall be content to be persuaded out of my Name with my Opinion.  
And therefore if I might advice the Doctor, for I do not love to be upon necessity of exposing a Man of value, I say therefore if I might advice him, I would have him drop his Cause, and leave it to men of more artifice and less sincerity and plainness to manage; alas the Doctor forgets, he should have but hinted at reasoning in the case, and not stood upon it, but fled to the perverse confusion of Quotations and Authority, if he would have done as he should do.  It is impossible but that Offences must come, but Woe be to him through whom Offences come, it were better a millstone, &c.  
FINIS.