That you may not think my Scheme of Arguing would overturn all Science at once, and end in univerfal Scepticism; I grant, that though two Ideas are in the main obfcure, yet they may be fo far diftinct, as that we may difcern the one not to be the other; either by immediate Intuition, (as I may know a Pine-apple not to be a Pomegranate, though I have a very faint Idea of Both) or by the Intervention of one Idea or more which are clear and distinct.

Let us examine these two Propofitions, the one Lactantius's; the other, in Subftance, your's. The Divine Nature created itfelf. The Divine Nature, confifting of three Perfons, could not fatisfy itself. As to the former, if it be taken in a strict Philofophical Senfe, there is a glaring Contradiction in it. "The Divine Nature not exifting

-could

"not act before it was-could not therefore

"create itself." Here though the two Ideas, the Divine Nature and Creation, are very obfcure and indiftin&t; yet we perceive a manifeft Repugnancy in the Affertion of Lactantius, by the Intermediation of a third Propofition, which refolves itself into an Identical one- -"Nothing

cr

can act before it is-Nothing can have no Properties, otherwise it must be fome“thing—i. e. Nothing is Nothing.” Thus, though our Ideas of the Deity—Eternity of the Deity-Omniprefence, etc. be very confused,

confused, yet we prove the Existence of the Deity, and the Existence of these his Attributes by the Help of intermediate Ideas that are diftinct, and lye level to our Capacities: Nay, we find them neceffarily connected with Axioms that cannot be controverted.

Here then all appears in broad Daylight. But if we turn to your Propofition:" "No Light, but rather Darkness visible." Take it thus: Three intelligent AgentsTheir Nature one and the fame-One cannot fatisfy the other. Here, your middle Term,. viz. the Divine Nature is one and the fame, which fhould give Light to the two Extremes, and make them amicably correspond, calls for the friendly Efforts of fome metaphyfical Heroe, to rescue it from that impenetrable Obfcurity in which it is at. prefent involved. And if that Term which hould be the Light in your Argument, is Darkness, how great must that Darkness be? You should prove, that the Unity of the Divine Nature must be either too close to admit of diftinct Actions, fuch as giving and receiving Satisfaction; or elfe too loose to make three Perfons one God. You fhould demonftrate; that, either the Diftinction of the Divine Nature cannot be wide enough to answer the diftinct Offices before mentioned;" or that it will not be strict enough to make the three intelligent Agents one Deity: And then it would follow; that, because the Dd 3 Divine

Divine Nature is one and the fame, one intelligent Agent cannot fatisfy the other, The Manner of the Divine Unity is as incomprehenfible as His Effence; and the Ideas we endeavour to frame of it are too lame, inadequate and confused to beget any certain and full Knowledge; which must always keep pace with our Ideas.

In your fecond Page, having an inex¬ hauftible Magazine of Thoughts, and Plenty of Ammunition, you are discharging your Artillery into the Air, without levelling directly at me, or defending yourself. Please to remember, that your Senfe is afcertained by the Subject you are upon.

To appear, and to be reasonable, are the fame Thing to Us, where we evidently perceive a Truth. But where we only conceive a Thing to be true, we may fufpend our Judgment.

After having explained your Words in a Sense which they will not bear, you make an Attempt to difprove fome inoffenfive Expreffions at the Clofe of my Letter. I need not repeat them; your Answer is as follows:

If, fay you, a Man of Senfe and Impartiality can bring himself to fancy That to be abfurd, which in itself is not fo, (viz. what relates to the Nature and Effence of the Deity, where there is an infinite Difproportion between the Object and the Faculty)

be

be may as well fancy Truth, where there is none upon the fame infinite Object

When I first confidered this Sentence, I was at a Lofs for a confiderable Time to know, why you inferted the Words, a Man of Senfe and Impartiality. I looked upon them as idle Terms, which had no Business here; and was going to difmifs them, as impertinent Intruders. But confidering, that my Letter was directed to you, I find that you had a Mind to bring me under a Dilemma; either of giving you up as a Man of Senfe and Impartiality; or, owning that Men of Senfe and Impartiality may fancy Abfurdities and Truth where there are none. What muft I do to extricate myself? Give you up as a Man of Senfe and Impartiality? No, by no Means; if my Cafe were defperate: Because I have repeated, numerous, decisive Proofs of your Senfe and Impartiality. No other Refource is then left: I must be fo fanguine as to affirm, that Men of impartial Sense may vent feveral Crudities. For a Proof of which I refer you to MooR, RAPHSON, Doctor CLARK E, cum multis aliis; the two former maintaining, that GOD was Infinite Space; the laft, that HE was the Subftratum of Infinite Space, or an Infinite Vacuum. Nay, the Doctor conceived (or fancied) that he had intuitive Certainty of it. For He fays, it was as plain to him, as that two and two make four. D d 4

But

But you proceed- He may fancy the Proofs of Chriftianity to be strong, numerous and decifive, and a little lower, to lye level to his Capacity, when they in Reality are not fo (I fuppofe you mean) to him. He may fancy fo, if he pleases: But, if he will attend to the Proofs, he may do more than fancy. He may have a Certainty, that he must either disbelieve every Thing he does not fee; or, believe Christianity to be true: Chriftianity having all the Proofs that any Matter of Fact has, and feveral additional diftinguishing Proofs which no other has.

The Truth of the Cafe is this: Our Profpect is bounded by a very narrow Horizon; our Faculties are limited within a very confined Sphere of Activity. Within That Sphere the Proof of Matters of Fact, if any Thing, lies; and within that Sphere Things in the main are easy and obvious, Beyond it all, except fome few negative, undeterminate Ideas, is an immense Blank to us; and beyond it, if any Thing, the internal Manner of the Divine Existence, and the Kind of the Unity and Diftin&tion in the tremendous Deity, upon which the Doctrine of the Satisfaction depends, is infinitely removed. Here our Ignorance may occafion us to conceive (for Ignorance does not beget Perception) imaginary Abfurdities and appearing Inconfiftencies: Either because we have no direct, proper,

3 original