ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

THE THIRD LETTER.

WORTHY SIR,

W

ERE I to copy after the Model of your laft Letter, the Contest between us would confift of these three Things: First, Who could fay the handsomest Things of one another Secondly, Who could fay the bittereft Things against one another; and, Laftly, Who could produce the ftrongest Arguments to fupport his own Notions.

I must chiefly keep to the last of these : Declining the first, because it is too copious; and the fecond, because too barren. I might indeed be very fevere, but then it would be upon myself. The Arrow might be drawn to the Head, and levelled with a dexterous> Aim; but could not reach a Merit which towers to fo uncommon an Height as your's. It is with fome Reluctance I tell you, that it was unmanly and ungenerous to point your Hoftilities against me, when you knew it was not in my Power to make Reprizals upon you. Do but become like me, pofitive and confident; combating your own Shadow, beating the Air; in fhort, Labouring under a deplorable Want of com

mon

mon Sense: Give me but one Inch of

Ground to fet my Foot upon, and you will find that I can shake even the Weight of your Character. But while I confider You as a Gentleman of uncommon Senfe and Merit,

"With Wit well-natur'd, and with Books "well bred;"

I cannot fatyrize what is no Subject of Satyr.
For You then to provoke me to enter the
Lifts with you, by pointing your Raillery
against me for Pages together, was (I will
repeat the Charge) as cowardly, as if a
Man, who was invulnerable from Head to
Foot, fhould challenge a weak, defenceless
Creature to fingle Combat-
-But enough

of This.

In the following Letter you will find fome Things paffed lightly by, either because I thought they had not much Weight, or because I thought them answered already. I would willingly lay down this as a Rule to go by (though it is ten to one but that I myself deviate from it) viz. to take Notice of nothing but what is really a Difficulty; and to omit nothing that is really fo; to keep close to the Merits of the Caufe, and to pare off Luxuriancies.

With this View I will not defend my Inftance about a Pine-Apple, and a PomeFf2 granate;

granate; not because I think it inaefenfible, but because I think it impertinent, or unneceffary to determine the Point in Debate

I find, a little lower, you will difagree with me, where we do not really differ. The middle Term, you say, is not the Divine Nature; but, the Unity of the Divine Nature. Very well: And do not I fay the very fame? I having faid, that "the Manner "of the Divine Unity was incomprehenfible;" you thence would conclude, that it is unintelligible; as if Incomprehenfible and Unintelligible must have the fame Signífication. Notwithstanding you, both here and elfewhere, confound them; it would be an Affront to your Understanding to point out the Distinction between them. My Account of Unity is, it seems, to you very loofe and indeterminate; and you cannot difcover how

wide Unitarian differs from a Tritheift. If you confult Bishop BULL'S Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity, you will find, that the Imputation of Tritheifm is never to be faftened but on those who divide the Subftance. Suppofe then a Person, who was invefted with a Power of working fuperior Miracles, fhould tell me ; that in the Divine Substance there was a triple Distinction: Greater than that of three mere Modes and Relations; and yet less than that of three diftin&t Men or Angels.

I

My Ideas

Ideas here are merely negative“ A Dis"tinction in the Divine Nature—not that "of three Modes, -not that of three "diftinct Subftances: " Yet I may give a rational Affent to this Doctrine; because I cannot prove it to be impoffible. Not diftinctly perceiving the Divine Nature, I cannot diftinctly perceive a Contradiction in the Nature of the Thing; and nothing, but a Contradiction and Impoffibility, can be a Bar to the Belief of a Doctrine attefted by Miracles. But fhould the fame Perfon affert, that Divine Subftance was one, yet fevered by a μέγα χάσμα (a great Gulph or Difcontinuity;) this Propofition I could not admit, because I clearly perceive, that what is difunited cannot be one. The fhort of the Matter is this. Whatever is one, must be indivifum in fe. But Tritheifm supposes the Divifim or Divifibility of the Subftance.

Thus my Notion of the Divine Unity, however lame and inadequate, is too frict to admit of the Name of Tritheifm, and yet wide enough to take in three undivided intelligent Agents into the fame Divine Effence. And whoever pretends, from the negative Ideas of Indivifibility, and Simplicity (or, a Negation of heterogeneous Mixtures) to prove, that no Kind of Union whatever is fufficient to make more Perfons one Being; will foon find, that He is to work up a Demon

Ff3

Demonftration, where he has not fufficient
Data to build upon.
This would be,

"Parva per Tyrrhenum quor "Vela dare."

where our Reason will be foon overset, or carried with every Wind of Doctrine.

[ocr errors]

For my Part, I ftill own, I want your difcerning Faculty to find out the neceffary Connexion between indivifible and undif tinguishable. Diftinction and Division seem, to my dull Apprehenfion, two different Ideas. You will afk me, no Doubt, what Diftinction That is, which is neither a Diftinction of three Modes, nor yet a Distinction of three Subftances. To which I answer, that Subftance and Subftance united is more than three Modes, and yet not three Subftances: Because whatever is effentially united, is one Subftance. You afk, "Is the Subftance of the fecond Perfon the "fame numerical Subftance with that of the first? etc."

I wish your enterprizing Genius would oblige me with fixing fome certain Principle of Individuation, that I might know what makes one numerical Subftance, according to your Philofophy.

Let me prevail upon you, to add this Favour to your former, In your second

Letter

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »