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 G 4 keep keep close to the Merits of the Caufe, and to pare off Luxuriancies. With this View I will not defend my Instance about a Pine-Apple, and a Pomegranate; not because I think it indefenfible, 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 fay, 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 Signification. Notwithstanding you, both here here and elsewhere, 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 a wide Unitarian differs from a Tritheift. If you confult Bishop BULL'S Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity, you will find, that the Imputation of Tritheism is never to be fastened but on those who divide the Subftance. Suppose then a Person, who was invested with a Power of working fuperior Miracles, fhould tell me; that in the Divine Subftance there was a triple Distinction: greater than that of three mere Modes and Relations; and yet less than that of three diftin& Men or Angels. My Ideas here here are merely negative "A "Diftinction in the Divine Nature - not that of three Modes, "not that of three diftinct Subftan"ces:" 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 Person affert, that the Divine Substance was one, yet severed by a μέγα χάσμα (a great Gulph or Dif continuity;) this Propofition I could not admit; because I clearly perceive, that what is difunited cannot be one. The fhort of the Matter is this. What Whatever is one, must be indivifum in fe. But Tritheism supposes the - Divifion or Divifibility of the Subfance. 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 Demonftration, where he has not fufficient Data to build upon. I "Parva |