Page images
PDF
EPUB

and whole are not properly applied to Wifdom, Power, &c. Ifhall tell you again, that They are (for any thing You, or I know) as properly applied to the Attributes, as they are to the Subject; and belong to Both, or Neither. And fince you are pleafed to talk of parts and whole of God's Substance, of which you know little, give me leave to talk in the fame way, where I know as little. The learned Doctor represents it as a great Sokecifm to speak of an * Ell, or a Mile of Conciousness. He may be right in his Obfervation: But the natural Confequence deducible from it, is, that Thought is not compatible with an extended Subject. For there is nothing more unintelligible, or, feemingly at least, more repugnant, than unextended Attributes in a Subject extended: And many may think that an Ell, or a Mile of God (which is the Doctor's Notion) is as great a Solecism as the other. Perhaps, after all, it would be beft for Both of us to be filent, where we have really nothing to fay: But as you have begun, I must go on with the Argument, about the Omniprefence, a little farther. Well, if it cannot be part only of the divine Substance, which is in Heaven, fince God is There, and fince all the Perfections and Attributes of the Deity have There their full exercife; let us fay that the whole divine Substance is there. But then how can He be omniprefent? Can the fame individual Substance be confin'd, and unconfined? Or can there be a diffufion of it

*Cl. Lett. p. 4,

every

every where, and yet nothing diffused? For it is fuppofed that the whole Effence or Substance is diffused all over the Universe, and yet remains whole and undiffused in Heaven. Which, again, is evidently to be, and not to be, at the fame time.

I fhould hardly forgive my felf, upon any other occafion, fuch trifling in ferious Things. If you take to this kind of reasoning, (which is really not reafoning, but running riot with Fancy and Imagination) about Matters infinitely furpaffing human Comprehenfion; you will make lamentable work of it. You may go on, till you reafon, in a manner, God out of his Attributes, and your felf out of your Faith; and not know at last where to stop. For, indeed, all Arguments, of this kind, are as ftrong for Atheism, as They are against a Trinity: Wherefore it concerns you feriously to reflect, what you are doing. This, and the like Confiderations have made the wisest and coolest Men very cautious how they liften'd to the rovings of wanton Thought, in Matters above Human Comprehenfion. The pretended Contradictions, now revived by many, against the Doctrine of the Trinity, are very old and trite. They were long ago objected to the Chriftians, by the Heathen Idolaters. They almoft turn'd the Heads of Praxeas, Noetus, Sabellius, Manichæus, Paul of Samofata; not to mention Arius, Neftorius, Eutyches, and other Antient Hereticks. The Catholicks were

were fenfible of them; But having well confider'd them, They found them of much too flight Moment, to bear up against the united Force of Scripture and Tradition. The Doctrine of the Trinity, with all its feeming Contradictions, has ftood the Teft, not only of what Human Wit could do, by way of Difpute; but of all that Rage and Malice could contrive, through a Perfecution almost as Bitter and Virulent, as any that had ever been under Heathen Emperors. This is to me an additional Confirmation, that the Doctrine we profess is no fuch grofs Impofition upon the common Sense and Reafon of Mankind, as is pretended. It was neither Force, nor Interest, that brought it in; nor that hath fince, fo univerfally, upheld it: And Men are not generally fuch Idiots as to love Contradictions and Repugnancies, only for Humor or Wantonnefs, when Truth and Confiftency are much better, and may be had at as eafy a rate. These Reflections have carried me rather too far: But They may have their use among fuch Readers as know little of the Hiftory of this Controverfy; or how long It had been buried; till it pleased fome amongst Us to call it up again, and to dress it out with much Art and Fineffe; to take the Populace, and to beguile the English Reader. Many Things have fallen under this Query, which properly belong'd not to it. But it was neceffary for Me to pursue You, what way foever You should take. You was more at Liberty: My Method is determin'd by Your's. X QUERY

QUERY

ER Y XX.

Whether the Doctor need have cited 300 Texts, wide of the purpose, to prove what no Body denies, namely, a Subordination, in fome Senfe, of the Son to the Father; could He have found but one plain Text against His Eternity or Confubftantiality, the Points in Question?

YOUR

OUR Anfwer to this is very fhort, not to say negligent. You fay, if the DoEtor's 300 Texts prove a real Subordination, and not in name only, the point is gain'd a gainst the Querift's Notion of Individual Confubftantiality; unless the fame individual intelligent Subftance can be Subordinate to it felf, and Confubftantial with it felf. Here you are again Doubling upon the word, Individual. The Querift never had fuch a Notion as that of perfonal Confubftantiality, which is Ridiculous in the Sound, and Contradiction in Sense; and yet you are constantly putting this upon the Querift, and honouring Him with your own Prefumptions. Let me again fhow you, how unfair and difingenuous this Method is. Do not you fay that the fame individual Subftance is prefent in Heaven, and, at the fame time, filleth all Things? That it pervades the Sun, and, at the fame time, pene

Clarke's Reply, P. 7.

trates

trates the Moon alfo? I might as reasonably argue that you, by fuch Pofitions, make the fame individual Substance greater and less than it felf, remote and diftant from it felf, higher and lower than it felf, to the right and to the left of it felf, containing and contain'd, bounded and unbounded, &c. as you can pretend to draw those odd furprizing Confequences upon the Querift. Would not you tell me, in anfwer, that I mifinterpreted your Sense of individual, and took advantage of an ambiguous Expreffion? Let the fame Anfwer ferve for Us; and you may hereafter spare your Readers the diverfion of all that unmanly trifling with an equivocal Word. But enough of this Matter. I might have expected of you, in your Reply to this Query, one Text or two to difprove the Son's Eternity, and Confubftantiality, and to fupply the Deficiency of the Doctor's Treatife: But fince you have not thought fit to favor me with any, I muft ftill believe that the Doctor's 300 Texts, tho' very wide of the pose, are all we are to expect; being defign'd, instead of real Proof, to carry fome Show and Appearance of it, that they may feem to make up in Number, what they want in Weight. All that the learned Doctor proves by his 300 Texts, or more, is only that the Son is Subordinate to the Father: Whether as a Son, or as a Creature, appears not. However, the tacite Conclufion which the Doctor draws from it, and infinuates carefully to his Reader, is, that the X 2

pur

Son

« PreviousContinue »