once Men, enamoured of their own Metaphyfical Reveries, relinquish them; (just as the Ifraelites forfook the living God) they

fet

up fome vain and fenfeless Idol of the Imagination; and then wonder that all Mankind do not fall down and adore it. I add farther, that whoever has attempted to explain away the venerable Mysteries of Christianity, has made the Doctrines far more myfterious than they were before. This is exemplified by Dr. CLARKE'S Scripture-Doctrine, etc. who has attempted to get rid of the Difficulties of the Orthodox Scheme at the Expence of much greater. "Graviorem plagam recepit, ut leviorem "repelleret."

You fee, that this Reflection is, according to Promife, undefigning. I will add another that does concern you.

Men of the common Level may with Reafon be afraid of being loft in a Crowd. To pass themfelves upon the World for Men of Penetration, they must strike into. new Tracks. But You will always be distinguished from the Many by the fuperior Height and Elevation of your Genius, When you do not differ from them,

Humero fupereminet omnes,

will be applicable to You,

I proceed

I proceed now to the fecond Part of your Letter, where I find. nothing very material, till You attack the Indifcerpible Bottom, as You call it. In Anfwer to the Objection, that this Perfon could not fatisfy That, because the Effence was one and the fame; I obferved, that Effence might be one and the fame, because indivifible, or indifcerpible

Indifcerpibility was no Bar

to Diftinction and diftin&t ActionsTherefore the Father and the Son might act diftinctly in giving and receiving Satisfaction.

Here I played my Cannon fo brifkly, that you were going to raise the Siege ingloriously; and to quit the Field in Precipitation and Disorder. But, like other Heroes, then exerting their Courage moft, when in the deepest Distress; You at laft, collected in yourself, bid me Defiance. I am forry to find your Strength bears no Proportion to your Heroifm. For, wanting. better Weapons, you begin the Onfet with Small Shot; aliàs, Indifcerpible Atoms, Your Metaphyfical Forces must be very poor and languid, when you were forced to call in Natural Philofophy to your Aid.

Thefe Indifcerpible Atoms, by your own Confeffion, are not abfolutely indifcerpible. But the Deity, if he does consist of Parts, confifts of Parts effentially unmoveable from each other, and unpartible, without an exprefs Contradiction in Terms. For all Gg 4 Divifion

División implies Limitation, and Limitation is contrary to our Ideas of the Deity, He cannot be divided without ceafing to be infinite; because where there is a Chafm (and Divifion makes a Chaẩm) there can bè no Infinity; and He cannot ceafe to be infinite, without ceafing to be God. He is neceffarily what he is, confequently if he be undivided, he must be neceffarily undivided, and neceffarily indivifible. By Parts then in the Deity, if the Scheme of Extenfion be granted, we must not understand what is partible (for that is only true of corporeal Parts) but Metaphyfical Parts; or fo much of the Divine Subftance, as is commenfurate to fuch an affignable Portion of Matter. And to argue, that because Phyfical Parts are feparable, therefore Metaphyfical Parts must be fo too, is a very inconclufive Way of Arguing; It is Tran fito à Genere ad Genus. Thus the happy Beam of Light, which you bad ftruck upon, proves to be nothing else but an Ignis Fatuus.

You tell me, that Indifcerpibility infers Parts; and I am fure Difcerpibility does. Hard Fate for those who would prove the Deity Impartible! for he muft, it feems, have Parts, if he be either difcerpible, or indifcerpible; either divifible, or indivisible.

The Sum and Subftance of what I would fay is this-That your indifcerpible Atoms confift of above and under; of this and that

1

Side; and it can be no Impoffibility for the Deity, whatever it may be to the Powers of Nature, to separate the Upper from the Under, and this Side from that. But what can feparate the Deity?—not Himself; no more than He would limit Himfelf: Not any created Being; for can a created Being limit and disjoin That by which he is created? You refer to what you have faid before to difprove, that Indiffoluble Union may conftitute Unity, etc. and I take the fame Privilege to refer to what I have said above in Proof of it. I never adopted the extended Scheme; but, because You fuppofed it; in Complaifance to you I argued from it; not ignorant, in the mean Time, that the Trinity would ftand it's Ground upon the Scheme of Non-Extenfion, perhaps with greater, I am fure with equal Advantage. Why you call the Scheme an unfriended Infant, I want to be informed. Can that be unfriended which is countenanced by the great Names of LIM BORCH, LOCKE, TILLOTSON, CLARKE, and NEWTON? To which I add, with Pleasure, my ingenious Correfpondent in the former Part of his Letter.

What you fay below in this Page about a Contradiction, I have anfwered towards the Beginning of this Letter. Indifcerpibility is a negative Idea. I am glad, that Indifcer pibility is no Bar to Diftinction, and diftinct

Actions.

457

Actions. You allow that it is not, and I heartily thank you : For, that being allowed, each Link of the Chain is made firm in my Argument, whether the extended or unextended Scheme takes place. But alas! alas! how fhort-lived and fleeting are human Joys! Cafting my Eyes upon another Page, I find you deny what you before allowed; and tell me, that Indivifibility is an Obftruction to Diftinction. I will not anticipate here what will be more proper to be faid hereafter, when I come to that Page.

I wish I could draw a Veil over what is to follow. It will be a melancholy Scene. Nothing but your Requeft, which fhall have always the Force of an authoritative Command with me, could prevail upon me to proceed to re-confider with great Reluctance your poor unfortunate Tritheiftical Hypothefis.

The first Argument I produced against it was drawn from Mofes, and our Saviour, who quotes the Text. Hear, O Ifrael, the Lord (Jehovah) your God is one Lord; one neceffarily-exifting Substance. It is very obfervable that, after our Saviour had quoted thefe Words, when the Scribe faid, There is one God, and there is none other but He, Chrift commends the Scribe for having anfwered difcreetly: Which he could not have done, if, befides that only God (none other but He) there had been a Trinity of Gods (according to Your Scheme) to be wor

shipped.