And not to be Pert in Charge ing Contradictions upon them; which after all arifes only from the Weakness and over-weening of our own Understanding, and our Miftakes in Meafuring the Nature of God proportionable to

Qur own.

(10.) Now, Sir, I hope you will find Reafon to Alter the State of the Queftion, as you put it upon me, p. 2. where you fay to me, you are not to fhew that a Seeming Contradiction may be none (for who knows not that?) but that a real Contradiction may, in fome Cafes, be none. Sir, I utterly Except against this State of the Question. It is none of Mine. I never undertook to Prove that a Contradiction is not a Contradiction. That wou'd make me as Ridiculous as you have call'd me. And you might Triumph over me as you Pleas'd, if you cou'd Fix this upon me: Did I ever fay, That three Perfons in God was a Contradiction? Have 1 not taken pains to fhew that ther is no Contardiction in it? And that the Seeming Contradiction arifes only from our Explaining it after the Manner of three Perfons among Men? And have I not given Reafons against thus Explaining it? Whether my Reasons are Good or Bad is not now the Question. But this is Sufficient to Clear me from your Charge of Maintaining, That a real Contradiction

may, in fome Cafes, be none. Ther is no Cafe wherein a Contradiction is not a Contradiction. But ther may be a real Contradiction in one Cafe, which in another Cafe may be but a Seeming Contradiction. And I hope these ought to be Distinguish'à.

(11.) I endeavour'd to Illustrat this by the Inftance of the Blind Man. Which you thus Retort upon me, p. 2. where you Repeat these words as mine," "Tis "impoffible to Explain to him what "Sight is, fo as to Reconcile it "from being a Contradiction to "him. I anfwer (say you) that "a True and Just Explication of "it will not Contain any real "Contradiction, 'tis from his "Miftake alone.

Now pray, Sir, how is this an Answer to me? Have not I faid the fame? 'Tis from his Miftake alone. That's true. But whence came this Miftake? Was it not from the Explication was given him of Sight? But you fay, That a True and Fuft Explication of it will not contain any real Contradiction. I have try'd my hand, and I confefs I cannot give a True and Juft Explication of Sight to a Man Born Blind. Neither have you. Which you ought to have done, when you found Fault with Mine. But it is not yet too late, pray, Sir, do it. And give fuch a True and fuft Explication of Sight, as will not

Contain

Contain any real Contradiction to the Blind Man. I mean a Con tradiction in your Explanation, not in the Nature of the thing For the Blind Man himfelf do's not think Sight to be a Contradiction, for he Wishes for it, and Bemones the Want of it. But he will find real Contradictions in whatever Explanation of it (I dare fay) you can give by Allufion to any of his four Senfes. Yet he will not think the Fifth Senfe which he wants to be any Contradiction, only that it can not be Explain'd to him: And he Believes what he do's not Understand. Yet the Socinians make this Abfurd and Ridiculous when we Apply it to the like Humbling of our Understanding as to the Incomprehenfible Nature of God! The Blind Man Belives what he Knows not, nor can Understand, from the Teftimony of other Men, who tell him they have Sight; which yet they Cannot Explain to him without Manifold Contradictions as to him. All which Hinders not his Be lief of it. For he Confiders his own Defect. But we will not But we will not Receive the Teftimony of God, in the Revelations He has given Us of His Holy Trinity, because we Understand it not: nor can Explain it fo as to be Free from all Difficulty according to our Ap prehenfion of things! We will Confider Nothing of our own Defects, in Seeking to Compre

hend what We own to be Incomprehenfible!

If you fay, That the Doctrin of the Trinity is not Reveal'd in the H. Scriptures, and that this is the Difpute. Then let it be the Difpute. That is the Subject I have Undertaken in thefe Dialogues. And that the H. Scriptures were fo Underftood in the First and Purest Ages. But as to your ObjeƐtions about Contradiction, I hope I have given Sufficient Satisfaction. And that it is made yet Plainer, by these Repeated Objections of yours.

If I have us'd too many words, it is from that Difficulty you put upon your own Understanding to Miftake my Meaning, for I believe it was Plain enough to others before. But I Grudge I Grudge not my Pains to YOU.

(12.) Was it from this Willingness to Miftake that you Charge me, p. 3. with faying, That a Contradiction is fometimes no Contradiction, which is what you faid, fay you to me. Now I dare fay I never Said it, becaufe I never Thought it. Nor can any one Think it. Why did you not Quote where I faid So? Or elfe tell how you did Infer it. Tho' your Inferring, and my Saying are two things. Is this the way you take to make me Ridiculous?

(13.) In

than that he has a good Memomory, and Forgets Nothing. But is there no more in the Cafe? Is his Duration then by Succeffion of Time, like Ours? Is Part of His Duration Loft, and Irrecoverably gone, like our Yesterday? And do's it now Remain only Objectively prefent in His Memory? Do's He now only Remember what he was many Years ago? If He can Remember or has a Memory, then fome of His Time is Paft. We fay Eternity is but one Inftant. But how it Comprehends Time within it we cannot tell. For we can speak of it no otherwife than in words of Time. But it will be the fame when Time fhall be no more, as it was before Time had a Being. Ther is no Paft or Future with God, and things are Prefent to Him otherwife than by way of Memory. And if we fay the fame of Men, it will be Contradiction upon Contradiction. And fo it will be if we Measure His Eternity by our Time. And as Daring is it to Measure His Nature by our Nature, or His Perfons by our Perfons. And to fay this or that muft be Contradictory in Him, becaufe it is fo with Us! When we know, That the Words by which we Exprefs Him are Proper only to Us, and Apply'd to Him but by way of Allufion. And as Improper as when we fpeak of His Eternity in our Words of Time.

(16.) Your 5th Page is taken up with Arguments fhewing, That tho' we know not the Nature of God perfectly, yet we know fo much of it, at leaft Negatively, that we may Difcover Contradictions to it in feveral Particulars, which wou'd argue Imperfection or Mutability in God, as as that He fhou'd Lie, or Cease to Be, &c. All which I readily Grant. But then you infift that this makes against my Pofition, That we are not to Object Contradictions in a Nature we do not Understand. That is, wherein we do not Understand it, as in a Blind-Man's Judging of Colours, by which I explain'd it. I grant ther are General Contradictons may be faid of any thing, as that the fame thing should Be and not Be, at the fame time, &c. But thefe are not Contradictions that Refpect any particular Nature more than another. And my Subject was concerning a Contraaiction in a Particular Nature, and this Infer'd from a Seeming Parallel Inftance in another Nature. In which Cafe I fay we muft Understand both Natures, elfe we cannot draw an Inference from the one to the other; as a Blind man cannot Argue from Leggs to Eyes, nor infer Contradictions from the one to the other, because he Understands not the Nature of Sight, and therefore cannot Judge. Far lefs can we Judge of the Perfonalities B

of

of God by the Perfonalities of Men, because of the Infinitely Greater Distance and Diversity of their Natures.

To this you fay (ibid) That tho' we cannot Argue from the Refemblance of the one to the other, yet thus much we may Conclude in the General, That three Perfons cannot be but one Perfon. Which I never Deny'd

Efpecially (fay you to me) "when your felf had Granted. "to the Socinian, That it is a "Contradiction to fay, Three Perર "fons (in God) are but one Per"Son; which I reprefented to you "was what the Socinians Charg'd 66 your Scheme with: And there, fore you were bound (but "wou'd not Attempt it) to "fhew, that this Contradicti"on is not Chargeable upon 66 you.

But, Sir, how cou'd you fay I did not Attempt it? when at the fame time you Infift that I Granted it to be a Contradiction, that Three Perfons (in God) -are but one Perfen. Then furely I did not fay, that three Perfons were but One Perfon, nor thought our Scheme Chargeable with this. In the firft Dialogue p. 6. you will find the Contents on the Margin to be, That ther is -no Centradiction in those Terms by which we exprefs the H. Trinity. Did I not then Attempt to fhew, That this Contradiction is not Chargeable upon us?

And your Socinian do's very little Understand the Chriftian Scheme, when he Charges it with holding Three Perfons to be but One Perfon. How he will Infer it from that Scheme is one thing, but to Charge the Scheme with it is Ridiculous, when the Scheme do's exprefly Deny it.

And pray Confider whether all thofe Arguments by which you wou'd Infer this from our Scheme, do not proceed from the Refemblance you make betwixt the Perfonalities of Men and of God? Which you have Granted me ought not be done. You argue from Peter, James, and John, to Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. And here it is I fhew you the Disparity, and that no true Arguing can lie, if we will Carry on the Comparison in all its Parts, and that Strictly and Property. For those Words that are Proper to Peter, James, and John, are not fo to Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft; and yet we can ufe none other. But then we must not Argue Strictly from the one to the other, knowing that thofe Words which are Proper to the one, are to be Underftood but by way of Allufion (and that at an Infinit Diftance) when Apply'd to the Other.

You fay ibid. (p. 5.) I don't in this Cafe, Object a Contradiction in God, from a Suppofition that! His Nature is Refembled by Mine. Now I will undertake to fhew,

That