not the cause of any Light But whereas I humbly Conceive after all that the Sun is the Cause of Light I owe this my Opinion neither to the History of the Bible nor to the Schools but to a certain thing called Eye-sight and for this Satisfaction he owes me thanks But Thirdly saith he The Sun is the Cause of Light He may as well say The Sun is the Cause of the Sun and the Light of Light or any thing whatsoever is the Cause of its own Nature But why so I beseech him Are the Sun and Light the self-same thing Then a Glow-worm hath the Sun in the Tayl of it And then the Light was not made 3. days before the Sun for all the Book of Genesis But if he please to give any Credit to his own Eyes he will be tempted to think that the Body of the Sun and the Light which comes in at his Windows are two things But at last we find him in a good humour for well then saith he be it granted him that the Sun and the Light which proceeds from it did begin to Co-Exist in the same moment of time but then they cannot be the cause of one another But I must be still a little Cross and say First That I will not have it granted me that they did begin to Co-Exist in the same moment for I am satisfied to have them begin only to Exist in the same moment Secondly Neither shall he grant it to me that therefore they are the Cause of One another for I was so reasonable as to be Content to have but one of them the Cause of the other But now he is Cross again and saith That thing which is the Cause of another must be in respect of Time before the other thing whereof it is the Cause In sober Sadness my Friend he might have spared all his other Wise talk and only have told me this and he had done his Business For 't is as much as if he had said Let the Sun be the Cause of Light with all my heart and let them begin to Exist together too yet notwithstanding I would have you know that whatsoever thing is the Cause of another thing must be in order of Time before it And for once take my word for it And now to my Comfort we are Come to the Conclusion of this Ammadversion viz. What A. T. means by Order of Nature I am not sure that I can guess for I am not much Versed in School-Jargon yet guessing at his meaning I tell him That I can no more Conceive the Sun without the Light which proceeds from it than the Light that proceeds from the Sun from whence it does proceed This Sentence is long Enough too to be taken to pieces 1. He saith he is not sure that he can guess and yet does guess But my School-learning tells me that if he is sure he does guess he is sure he can guess 2. He saith he is not much Versed in School-Jargon that is to say he is Verst in Jargon but not in School-Jargon And because we will part fairly I am willing he should know that I believe both these Propositions 3. He saith he is not sure that he can guess what A. T. means by Order of Nature As if Priority in order of Nature and in Order of Time were a Distinction of my Coyning like that of Intelligible and Incomprehensible I perceive he is as great a Philosopher as School-Divine if he never before met with that Distinction which is much more Ancient than the most Ancient of the School-men or than Christianity it self But if he hath Ever met with that Distinction before he might have Presumed that what I mean by it is but what other Folk have Ever meant 4. He saith I can no more Conceive the Sun without the Light that Pooceeds from it than this Light without the Sun No nor can I neither for I can Perfectly well Conceive them both I can Conceive the Sun abstractly from any other Light than what is in the Body of it and I can Conceive too Every jot as well of the Light in my House at Noon-day abstracted from the Sun And so can he too if his great Modesty would but let him think so But we must not forget the last words of this his Conclusion viz. Thus I reckon to have done Justice to A. T 's 13th Proposition not forgetting the Appendent Similitude And I reckon I have done no injustice to his Animadversions on this or any other of my Propositions and whether he be out in his Reckoning or 1 in mine let any man of his own Chusing be judg that has but Common-sense Prop. 14. Those two Propositions do Speak our Explication of the H. Trinity to be as Contrary to Arianism as to Socinianism since the Arians assert that there was at least a Moment of time when the Son was not and that He is a Creature On this he sayes nothing that I can be Concerned to reply too unless I delighted in Exposing him for Exposings sake Prop. 15. Tho' we cannot understand how it should be no Contradiction to affirm that the three Persons are but one numerical Being yet hath it no Appearance of a Contradiction to say That there is an Unconceivably Close and inseparable Union both in Will and Nature between them And here too is very little to draw a Reply from me Except I delighted in Repetitions as much as he does but two or three Passages I can't well let go He saith It is a very Stange Boldness for men to determine that such or such a Notion is true which they cannot Conceive is true But I. How comes Boldness all o th' suddain to be such a Crime with this Gentleman 2. How comes that Proposition by such a Remarque as this since it Speaks nothing of the Truth of any Notion but affirms one Notion to have no Appearance of a Contradiction in it Nor does he offer a word to shew that there is any Contradiction therein or any Appearance thereof which a Wise man would believe to be his onely Business could such a one undertake Confuting of this Proposition 3. Who are they that determine any Notion to be true while they cannot Conceive it to be so And another Saying he hath here which further demonstrates what a deadly Enemy he is to the Crime Boldness viz. A Close and inseparable Union between God and Christ there cannot be unless he means such a Union as is between different Natures but that will not content him yet 't is all that can be granted But I much doubt that this is much more than he will grant I fear he will not grant That God the Father and his Begotten Son are as Closely United as are his Soul and Body the Natures of which are as different as the Natures of any two Created things can be and their Union with Each other so Close tho' not inseparable that he is as unable to
and 't is as Unreasonable that a Distinction should be Coyned viz. this between Intelligible and Comprehensible purely for the service of a particular Mystery and when that is done can be of no further use unless new Mysteries were to be Created And I Appeal to your self as much as you may be byassed by Affection to your Friend not only whether All he hath said about this Distinction be not unaccountably strange but likewise whether I have not given a more than sufficient Answer to the Request he makes me in these words Ignorant or Unthinking People may be Cheated with an Empty verbal distinction but since A. T. by which Letters he all along decyphereth me and I understand he means by them the Anonymous Trinitarian offers his Explanation to satisfie men that are Knowing as well as Religious Scholars as well as Christians I must beg him to assign the difference between these two words Intelligible and Comprehensible And he guesseth what Answer I will make in these words I am apt to think that he will tell me we can well understand that this Proposition is true Three are One but we cannot understand the Manner how Three should be One And then makes this Reply upon me Now he might as well say we comprehend the Truth of this Proposition but we do not understand the manner but then what becomes of his Distinction But he might have saved himself the pains of putting words into my Mouth and then Replying upon them For you have seen he is much out in his Guess what I would Answer and if he were not I should be content to be told that I have more than One soft place in my Head For what should ayl me to offer at an Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity agreeable with Natural Reason if I did Think what he would have me Say That 't is impossible to understand the Manner how Three should be One And now he saith He will take his leave of my Title with these two Propositions 1. Three are One is not true in a sence that is disagreeable to Reason and the sence of a Proposition that is not disagreeable to Reason is Intelligible and Comprehensible To which he must needs by this time expect this Reply It is Intelligible but 't is not therefore Comprehensible 2. He that understands the Truth of a Proposition understands the manner in which it is true and he which does not understand the manner in which a Proposition is true does not understand the Truth of a Proposition but takes it on Authority This Proposition of his is worded very oddly I cannot make better sence of it than by thus expressing it He who assents to the Truth of a Proposition understands the sence in which it is true but he that does not understand the sence does not assent to a Proposition but assents to it upon Authority Now the former part of this Proposition is sence but nothing to the present purpose but the latter is neither to the purpose nor sence as I need not inform you And now Sir your Friend is at length come to my Propositions As Prop. 1. God is a Being Absolutely Perfect To this he saith All Theists agree it Prop. 2. That Being which wants any one Perfection cannot be Absolutely Perfect That is in the strictest sence of that Phrase as I afterwards explained my self And he saith that this Proposition is self-evident as who sees not that so it is But his Consequence is so far from being so that it is a false one viz. Therefore our B. Saviour is not God but in a Metaphorical sence c. But had he had but a little Patience he might quickly have seen that notwithstanding Our Lord is not Self-Existent there is no necessity of his being God only in a Metaphorical Sence Prop. 3. Self-Existence is a Perfection and seems to be the Highest it being an Abatement of any other Perfections Greatness and Excellency tho' in it self Boundless not to be Originally in Him who hath it but derivatively To this he saith That Self-Existence does not only seem but is the Highest Perfection This he might perceive I could have told him as well as he me but 't is no fault to express our selves a little Modestly tho' he all along seems to be of another mind But whereas he here saith that Creatures Perfections are improperly so Called with respect to the Creatures as he afterwards found I by no means acknowledg either the Son or H. Ghost to be Creatures so we have only his word for it that the Perfections of Creatures are improperly so called with respect to them Prop. 4. God th Father alone strictly speaking is a Being Absolutely Perfect because he alone is Self Existent and all other Beings even the Son and Holy Ghost are from Him This All Trinitarians do acknowledg and is Asserted both in the Nicene Creed and that which bears the Name of Athanasius This Proposition too must needs down with your Friend but he likes not the Parenthesis Strictly Speaking and saith he is very suspicious of it not that he thinks A. T. inserted it to help a Cause off the Weakness whereof he was Jealous but yet to make his Scheme the more Accountable I thank the Gentleman for being so Modest in this Wipe but he could not wonder had he read to the end of my Propositions before he Entred on his Animadversions that I should here insert the foresaid Parenthesis For I do affirm the Son and H. Ghost to be Absolutely Perfectly Beings in reverence to the Perfections of their Nature that is that they are all Boundless and Infinite and that they have All perfections they Can have without a Contradiction and those are all but Self Existence and what necessarily follows upon it viz. Being the First Original of All things and I add too Absolute independence But more of this anon The Four next Propositions he hath no Controversy with me about But now Sir Comes a Proposition that makes your Friend tearingly Angry viz. Prop. 9. A Being which hath all the Divine Perfections that are Capable of being Communicated may be properly said to be Essentially God upon the account of those Perfections or to be indued with the Divine Nature This he calls a Gross Proposition because it Contradicts not only Common Sence and Reason but even all that A. T. hath Advanced This is Sir a Heavy Charge but we must wait a while before he makes it out that This Proposition is Contradictory to Common Sence and Reason for he thus goes on He had advanced that God is a Being Absolutely Perfect That a Being which wants any one Perfection can not be Absolutely Perfect That Self-Existence is the Highest Perfection That Jesus Christ and the H. Ghost are not Self Existent That they depend on God the Father That God the Father is the Original he should have said the First Original of all things And that He can be but one Numerically He
should have said that God in this Highest of Sences can be but one Numerically And now he saith that Point-blank against all this A. T. affirms that a Being which is not Absolutely Perfect which wants Self Existence which wants the Highest Perfection which derives it self from God which depends on God the Original of all things who is but one Numerically may be Properly said to be Essentially God upon the account of some Perfections for two it seems are not Communicated or to be induced with the Divine Nature Now Sir what a Multiplying of words is here Which wants Self-Existence Which wants the Highest Perfection Which derives it self from God as if these Three were more than One thing Tho I had no such Expression neither as derives it self from God And he is a little Injurious to me too in representing me as Saying that the Son and Holy Ghost have only some Perfections notwithstanding the following Parenthesis whereas he knows he ought to have represented me as saying That they have all that are Capable of being Communicated which are all but Self-Existence and what is necessarily therein Implyed And I say that this is not Capable of being Communicated because there is not a more Gross Contradiction than to say it is But how is this Proposition Point-blank Contrary to my foregoing ones This Question he Answers by Askking Questions For he next saith he must make bold to ask me these following Questions And I will answer them as well as I can as he asks them Quest. 1. Doth the Divine Nature Comprehend all Perfections or can it want one or two of the Chiefest and be still the same Divine Nature I Answer that the Divine Nature doth Comprehend all Perfections but Self Existence is a Perfection relating immediately to the Fathers Existence not to His Nature or Essence it speaking the most Excellent Manner of Existing peculiar to Himself Even as Adam's Coming into Being by Gods immediate Creation speaks not the Humane Nature in him a different Nature from that of his Posterity tho it spakes his Person to have an Excellency above all that have come into the World by Ordinary Generation And as the Humane Nature of our B. Saviour is not of a different kind from other Mens because he came by it in a Supernatural way so I say God the Father's Existence being without a Cause doth not make him to have another sort of Nature from that of the Son and H Ghost Which may be a Necessary Nature and Uncreated and be Constituted of all the Boundless Perfections of which the Nature of the Father Consists abstracted from the Consideration of the manner of His Existence notwithstanding whatsoever your Friend can Object against the Possibility thereof And notwithstanding any thing I have said in my first 8. Propositions this may be asserted without danger of being caught at Contradicting my self as I hope you 'l be Convinc't anon And now for his next Question Quest. 2. Can the Divine Nature be Communicated to a Being when less than all Perfections are Communicated to it I Answer that if you 'l read again what I have said to the Former Question you will find there needs no other Answer to this But I must blame the wording of this Question because it seems to suppose Prae Existent Beings to which the Divine Nature is Communicated Whereas the possibility of the Existence of other Beings from God the Father which have the Perfections of his own Nature is that which is to be understood by the Communicableness of those Perfections Quest. 3. Can a Being that depends on God be properly said to be Essentially that God on whom it depends I Answer that such a Being can be properly said to be Essentially that God in one sence but cannot in another i. e. It can have an Essence of the same kind tho' not the same Numerical one Quest. 4. Can a Being that distinguisheth it self from the Only True God be properly said to be Essentially that God who is the Onely True God and but one Numerically I Answer that because he loves needlesly to Multiply Questions I am not obliged so to Multiply Answers And this being the self-same with the other Question I have given my Answer to it And now I hope the Gentleman may be satisfied of the true reason of my Parenthesis in the 4th Proposition Namely because the Son and H. Ghost may be Absolutely Perfect as to their Nature abstracted as I said from the Consideration of the manner of their Existence wherein yet they may be said infinitely to Excel even Arch-Angels These Existing by voluntary Creation but those by Necessary Emanation Which is the Word of the Ancients and I cannot find a better to Express what is intended by it viz. a more Excellent manner of Existence than that of Creation Which Thousands of Persons no whit inferiour to the greatest Masters of Reason the Socinians can bost of both Ancient and Modern Divines and Philosophers have not thought deserves to be Scoffed at as Non-sence and a Contradiction to Natural Reason as much as it is above the Comprehension thereof and is every whit as intelligible as are many Notions relating to the DEITT in which all true Theists as well as Christians are agreed and also as are not a few relating to our own Souls their Powers and Faculties and their Union with and influence upon our Bodies and as are innumerable Notions too relating to Material things which an Experimental Philosopher cannot doubt the truth of In the next place Sir your Friend saith he despairs of hearing a wise Word answered to these Questions viz. the forementioned But I will not say where was his Wisdom then when he askt them because you will Reply they are however wise Questions if they serve to Expose the Trinitarian to whom they are put and to make his Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity down right Non-sence But I Reply let the Unbyassed Readers judge of this and Sir I heartily wish that your Self may be one of them And whereas he saith that he will do what he can to prevent troubling that is my troubling the Questions with Confused Empty Jargon My Answer is That I think I have not at all troubled the Questions whether I shall trouble him or no by my Answering them But I expect he will tell you that my Answers are Confused Empty Jargon and if he will please to tell me so I shall give him no Rougher Reply than this Sir This is a rare demonstration that your self is one of those Anti-Trinitarians whom you Extol in the beginning of your Answer to my Propositions as having Modestly as well as Learnedly and Piously and Strongly Impugned the Commonly received Doctrine of the Trinity But how does he Endeavour to prevent my troubling his Questions with Confused Empty Jargon He does it thus By Essence I suppose he means Nature I Answer I am willing to do so too And saith he in that
this is as much needs to be proved as that which it is brought to prove His onely Answer is like to be you must take this upon the Authority of my Lord of Canterbury For he onely goes about to Confirm it by a passage in His Sermon on 1 Tim. 2. 5. p. 13. But I not having that Sermon by me and he making no Marks to distinguish between what is his Graces and what is his own it is Enough to give him that for an Answer His second Argument whereby he Endeavours to prove the forementioned Self-Evident Proposition is That Self-Existence is indivisible and Gods Self-Existence is necessary and therefore if he should Communicate His Self-Existence to Another He Himself should remain not self-Existent which is a gross Absurdity and a manifest Contradiction O Wonderful is it so indeed I marvel who told him so it may be he takes this too on the Authority of some Great Man since he troubles not himself to make it out But there is as great a necessity of proving this also as of proving that of which it is a Proof And he makes this brave Argument to prove too That Infinite power is as incommunicable as self-Existence and Infinite Wisdom and Goodness because these are also indivisible But the Trinitarian is not so knockt down by this Unmerciful Argument to use a phrase of his own but that he may soon rise again Nay as Goodluck would have it 't is so weak a Blow that he has not felt it And 't will be found weaker than a Puff of Breath by that time I have askt him this one Question viz. Is not also the individual Nature of Every living Creature indivisible But as was before said Even the lowest Sort of them can propagate their own Nature which is the same thing with Communicating it and therefore methinks it should not be so great a Contradiction to say that He who gave Being to those Creatures can do the like Or if you please thus 'T is therefore no Contradiction to say That God the Father may be the Original of a Being which hath power to do all things possible to be done and hath unlimited Wisdom and Goodness As to the rest of this Animadversion I will not spend one Minute so vainly as to take notice of it for half an Eye must see it to be nothing better than to give it his own word mere Jargon Prop. 11. It seems Evident from the H. Scriptures That the Son and H. Spirit have all Divine Perfections but those two such as Unlimited Power Wisdom and Goodness and Unspotted Purity As to Unspotted Purity he grants that the Scriptures do plainly assert it of our Saviour but faith that that is but the Perfection of a Man or Angel not an infinite Perfection of a God I Answer that this he onely with his usual Confidence saies but tells us not how he comes by this Confidence But suppole he could demonstrate this yet the Unspotted Purity of the H. Ghost one would think to be the Purity of a God since we are so assured from Scripture that He is the Author of all that Purity and Holiness which Is or Ever shall be found in Men. And he must have a large stock of Confidence who dares say that the Purity which Excells not that of a Man or Angel is sussicient to qualify a Person to be the Sanctisier of all that are or shall be Sanctified And if the Purity of the H. Ghost be the Purity of a God I hope the Son's Purity may be acknowledg'd so to be too Surely those Socinians who believe the H. Ghost to be a Person will not make him to Excell the Son in Holiness Next he Cavils at my saying that this 11th Proposition Seems Evident to me and saith that Seems and Evident are two words very ill put together because that which doth but seem Evident is not really so and that which is Evident doth more than seem so I see Sir I must not hope to Please this Friend of yours I verily thought he was about to Praise me for my it Seems Evident For he saith upon it That Seems is a word that Speaks the Modesty of an ingenuous Enquirer after truth and on the Contrary That Evident fills the mouth of a man of Confidence as by the way I must tell him he knows by Experience Yet for all this the good Man designed to Expose me for my it Seems Evident and those two Sentences are Fleering ones and were intended for Scoffs But I pray him to Mock on after I have told him that First He knows I did not say it but Seems Evident And that Secondly 'T is utterly false that that which is Evident doth more than seem so to all Persons There are many Evident Truths that to those who Shut their Eyes against the Light may not so much as seem so and there are those who being sensible of the weakness of their understandings may say of Very Evident Truths this or that seems or appears Evident to them But we shall not in haste Sir Catch your Friend at the Extreme of Modesty For whatsoever seems not agreeable with his Reason which we have found to be a Clear and Strong Reason indeed must be immediately Contrary to Natural Reason And he is onely puzled at Comprehending Gods ways not God Himself and his Glorious Attributes And he can Comprehend whatsoever he Understands And now follows Another of his Modest Sayings viz. That this Proposition we are now upon does not so much as seem Evident from Scripture And he wishes I had Cited some of the plainest Texts to my Purpose But he hath had Enough of those Cited by other Trinitarians many of which the Socinians so play the Criticks upon that should the same liberty be taken as to all other Texts which are Capable of having the same work made with them the Scriptures would be made a mere Nose of Wax But however methinks the Apostle's so Expresly applying those words of the Psalmist to the Son of God viz. Thou Lord in the Beginning hast laid the Foundations of the Earth and the Heavens are the work of Thine Hands c. doth at least seem to Speak Him infinitely Powerfull And thesame thing does seem at least to be affirmed in those words Coloss. 1. 16. c. By Him were all things Created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth c. For He is before all things and by Him all things Consist And St Peters Saying to Him Lord Thou that knowest all things knowest that I love Thee doth at least seem to Speak his believing him to be infinitely Wise and a Searcher of the very Hearts of men which is also Expresly affirmed of Him by St Paul Rom. 2. 16. and 1 Cor. 4. 5. And by our Saviour Himself too Rev. 2. 23. I am He which Searcheh the Reins and Hearts And the Apostles saying that in Christ are hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledg doth sure
Infinite Substance It is a thing that is of Equal Extent with an Infinite Nothing But hold Cry you Who gave you leave thus to ask me Questions and then to answer them as you list for me I would have told you that my Phrase without Bounds or Limits is not to be taken so Strictly as to surpass the Space which holds All Worlds But Sir will this Answer do Is after all your Arguing from the Infinity of the Divine Substance your Notion of it onely this that it is as much without Bounds as Gods Creature the Universe And can this Consist with your having Asserted that 't is a Contradiction to say that there can be more than One Infinite Being But I foresee you will go near to Reply My Notion thereof is far from being so scanty a one as you Imagine for I hold that the Infinity of the Divine Substance Consists in its Power to Extend its Presence thro' all the parts of New Worlds as they are Created which God Almighty can if he pleases Create to All Eternity But then say I will you pretend Sir to have any the least Idea How the Divine Substance can do this And is not this Dilatation and farther Expansion thereof think you Capable of being made as Ridiculous and Contradictory a thing by such a Wit as yours as you think you have made Emanations from thence to be I know you cannot but be Aware that it is certainly so And therefore let the Reader judg what Prodigious Monstruous Presumption it is Excuse me if I am now a little warm to draw most Confident Conclusions from Premises which are Unspeakably above the reach of Humane Understandings as the Gentleman I have now bin Socratically talking with must Confess the Premises are from which he hath Argued against me Nay they must be above the Comprehension of all Finite as well as Humane Understandings Or Nothing is so For my part I dare not trust my Shallowness with two Thoughts upon such a Subject as this of Infinite Substances nor of an infinite Substance neither I have a distinct Notion of a Being Absolutely Perfect and Beings of Unlimited Perfections tho' infinitely Short of a Comprehensive One and therefore I chose to use onely such Expressions in my Propositions And because these are in some measure adapted to Humane Capacities the Deity is Every where described in H. Scripture by its Glorious Perfections of Wisdom Power Goodness Mercy Righteousness and Purity and by its most Wonderful Exertions and Displayings of them in the Creation And by these are the Son and H. Spirit described there as well as God the Father Wherefore I could not without mighty Regret Critizare Cum Crâ—tensi taking the Phrase for paying our Author in his own Coyn as I now did had I not so good a design therein as to Expose the Folly and Madness of the Liberty which he and others take with the most Profoundly Adorable Deity Can such Persons read those Questions of Zophar without Astonishment which he put to Job Ch. 11. 7 c. Canst thou by Searching find out God Canst thou find out The Almighty to Perfection It is as High as Heaven what Canst thou do Deeper than Hell what Canst thou know The Measure thereof is longer than the Earth and Broader than the Sea And now I have done with this Author as well as with his Reflexions who must not take it unkindly that I have been so plain with him there being not the least of Ill-Will in it but the greatest Good-Will I am sure And notwithstanding we differ so mightily in our Sentiments I wish him as well as I do my self If any do expect that I will be still Replying on as I am farther Attackt they 'l find themselves disappointed Unless such Objections shall happen to be offered against the Hypothesis of the Fathers the Non-Absurdity of which I Endeavour to desend as have not yet appeared And if such hereafter appear as upon Impartial Consideration I shall think Convictive I will not by God's Grace be ashamed to Confess that I have bin in an Errour But rather shall think I cannot do my self a greater Honour as I cannot do a greater Right to Truth than by publishing a Recantation But I will not be so Idle as to Contend for the Last Word with such Men as I know will never yield it me I mean those who will not distinguish between dicibile dicendum what it is possible to say and what ought to be said but will adventure to say any thing and turn Every Stone and put their Wits to their utmost Stretch to invent Replys and Rejoynders rather than let their Pens rest and much more rather than they 'l own the least Mistake And where-ever I find a deal of Art and Subtilty and mightily Laboured Oppositions Defences or Provings I cannot but Suspect that the desire of Victory and the Encreasing or Upholding of a Party or Mens great Opinion of their own Understandings have very much the Ascendent of the Love of Truth But how may the Learned Socrates shame the Self-conceited Dogmatizers Who would not acknowledg that the Oracle could have any other Reason to Pronounce himself The Wisest of all Men but Because he knew how ignorant he was and did not think he knew what indeed he did not And how may those words of S Paul lay the Plumes of these Gnosticks viz. If any man thinketh he knoweth any thing or Prideth himself in an Opinion of his being a Knowing Person he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know And it is certain that the more Sincerely and Impartially Inquisitive any Man is after Truth the less Stiff Opiniative and Pertinacious he will be and the less Confident of those Notions which are very disputable Because such a man is no less acquainted with the Strongest Objections against them than with the best Arguments for them And the more Extensive Knowledge any one hath acquired the more vigorously sensible will he be that he knows but very little Nor is any Man in a Capacity of Perceiving such Shallowness and Emptiness in his Mind as he who is surnished with the Largest Stock of the most Useful Knowledge The more we know of the Deity and the Stupendious works of Creation and Providence with the greater Amazement shall we Cry out with Holy Job How little a Portion is heard of Him How little am I Capable of understanding either of Him or them And the more a Man hath enquired into the Works of Nature the more Conscious will he be to himself how Extreamly little he hath bin able to discover even of the most despised things and such as the Vulgar take for granted to have nothing belonging to them that will afford any Matter for Enquiry There is no such Antidote therefore against Pride as the most Substantial and Comprehensive Knowledg whereas nothing makes a Man so Conceited and Self-assuming as a small Smattering of Learning And there are no such Masters of Reason in their own Opinion as such Men. The most Ancient Fathers when they han't the good Luck to be of these Mens mind are Old Dunces and as nothing is the truer for their saying it so neither is it one jot the more like to be true Nor is Novelty and Objection to them against the Probability of any darling Opinion How much rather would I be Modest Socrates than a Christian who so leans to his own or his Parties Understanding In what I have now bin saying I cannot for bear thinking of more Denominations than One of Professors of Christianity But yet I have bin far from Reflecting upon all of any Denomination I am not such a Censurer God give us All more Humility THE END Dr. Cudworth and Dr. Bull. Orat. ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉