Man ought to conclude, that what is a Contradiction as to Touch, must be a Contradiction as to Sight. You must not infer that, fince it is an Abfurdity for a Man to fatisfy Himself, therefore it is an Abfurdity for the Godhead, branched out into Three Perfons, to fatisfy Itfelf: This being to argue à pari, where there is an infinite Difparity: It is the Fallacy called Tranfitio à Genere ad Genus.

But if you will contend, that Arguments ab Humanis ad Divina are conclufive, notwithstanding there must be a boundless Difproportion in all Debates concerning the Subftance and Perfonality of the Divine Nature infinitely furpaffing Human Comprehenfion; then I hope my Parallel may be intitled to the fame Degree of Favour, to which others are, though not exactly correfponding.

Your Exception against the Parallel does not serve your Purpose. For though the Subftance of the two Kings is different, that of the Trinity one and the fame; yet I challenge you to prove, that the Actions of the Three Perfons in the Bleffed Trinity may not be as truly diftinct, as the Actions of one King are from those of the Other.

If then the Three Perfons of the Bleffed Trinity are invested with a Power of acting diftinctly; if receding from perfonal Right to Punishment and making Satisfaction, are

diftinct

381

diftin&t Actions from Infifting upon Right and receiving Satisfaction; then the Son might have as truly a Power to forego his Right, and to fatisfy, and the Father to accept of the Compenfation, as in the Case of the two Kings jointly-reigning.

Either you may fay, that the Three Perfons are not empowered to act diftinctly, or you will never be able to prove from the Unity of the Divine Substance, that the One Perfon might not make, and the other receive, Satisfaction; which are diftinct Actions. To use your own Words with a little Variation; the Party offended, namely One of the Two Perfons, forgives, out of pure Mercy, His Share of the Offence, and fatisfies only for that Share of it which belongs to the Other, who is likewife a diftinct Perfon, offended. To view the Matter in a true Light therefore, you must ftrike off One of the Perfons from any Share of Right to the Punishment, viz. That Perfon whom you fuppofe to have forgiven, etc. Thus though the fame Nature to which the Offence is given, as exifting in the Son, is fuppofed to make Satisfaction to the fame Nature, as exifting in the Father; yet the Perfon fatisfying, and the Perfon satisfied, are ftill kept diftinct.

What feems to have led you into your Miftake is this; that you fuppofe, whatever Diftinction there is in the Divine Nature,

yet it is a Diftinction which enters not into the Effence of that Nature. But this, I doubt, is not found Divinity; for the Effence is diftinct, or distinguished, though not divided, by the perfonal Properties. Each Perfon is an intelligent acting Substance invested with the diftinctive Characters of I, Thou, He; and with perfonal Properties and Relations, not distinguishable into more intelligent Agents. This Perfon is diftinct Subftance, that Perfon diftinct Subftance, but yet not Subftances, but one Subftance: Because Subftance and Subftance in Union does not make Subftances: Otherwise, upon a Supposition that every Being which exists is extended, there would be no fuch Thing as a Being strictly one in the whole Universe : Because every Being which is extended. confifts of Subftance and Subftance. The Subftance of God is in Heaven, on the Earth, pervades the Sun, Moon, etc. because it acts in all thofe Places. Nothing can act where it is not; neither can there be any Power where there is no Subftance: For that would be a powerful Nothing. Now the Divine Subftance pervading the Sun, Moon and Earth, is but one Substance; just as the three Perfons conftitute one Divine Nature; and yet the Subftance which pervades the Sun must be distinct, though not divided, from that which pervades the Earth; and that which pervades the Moon

diftinct

diftinct from Both; fo diftinct, that the One is not the Other; fo diftinct as it may be faid, Subftance here, and Subftance there.

You fee then, that the Unity of the Divine Substance does not neceffarily exclude all Diftinction. And, even upon a Supposition of Non-extenfion, if you allow the Deity to BE where He acts; the fame Method of Reasoning will take Place, and the fame Consequence will follow.

To make the Deity one Perfon, the Divine Substance must be fuppofed to be undistinguished into more intelligent Agents than one, having the distinctive Characters, etc. and that it is thus undiftinguished can never be proved: But to make the Deity one Subftance it is fufficient, that though there be this Substance and that Substance, yet there is do Difunion of this from that: Because we never call any Thing Substances, except where the Parts are disjointed or Separable. Each Perfon then is Effence or Subftance diftinguished with appropriate Characters; and more Perfons are more Subftances, where the Subftance is divided, and not otherwise.

Now to apply this: Try the whole Force of your Metaphyficks, you will never, by any neceffary Connexion of Ideas, make out; that this Subftance invefted with distinct Properties, Relations, etc. may not (waving his Right to Punishment) make Satisfaction to that Subftance however closely united.

If we should fuppofe one pure immaterial created Subftance with two diftinct Confcioufneffes, which, according to Mr. LOCKE, would make two Perfons, and whatever else is neceffary (if any thing else be necessary) to make two Subfiftences; I do not fee that it would, in that Cafe, be any Contradiction for the One to make Compensation to the Other for an Offence against Both.

I am fenfible that I have gone beyond my Line, as well as you. But I think I have a very good Apology to make. If I fhould fee a Perfon, for whom I had as great a Regard as one Man can have for another, wading beyond his Depth, and in imminent Danger of finking and being loft; I am excufeable if I venture after him with a Design to rescue him and bring him fafe to Land; though my Attempt fhould be attended with fome Danger to myself.

After all, I think the Doctrine of the Satisfaction, in the main, eafy enough; except it be to Those who defire to know more than they can; or pretend to know more than they do: viz. as I said before, that the fecond Perfon in the Trinity as truly fatisfied the first Person (though after a quite different Manner) as the Son of a King reigning jointly with his Father, may fatisfy his Father for Difloyalty to Both. It is eafy enough, I fay, if we will reft in Generals. But if we will come to Particulars, if we C c muft