« 이전계속 »
once Men, enamoured of their own Metaa physical Reveries, relinquish them ; (just as the Israelites forsook the living God) they fet up some vain and senseless 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 mysterious than they were before. This is exemplified by Dr. CLARKE's Scripture-Do&trine, 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 see, that this Reflection is, according to Promise, undesigning. I will add another that does concern you.
Men of the common Level may with Reason be afraid of being lost in a Crowd. To pass themselves upon the World for Men of Penetration, they must strike into new Tracks. But You will always be distinguished from the Many by the superior Height and Elevation of your Genius, When you do not differ from them,
Humero fupereminet omnes, will be applicable to You,
I proceed now to the second part of your Letter, where I find nothing very material, till You attack the Indiscerpible Bottom, as You call it. In Answer to the Objection, that this perfon could not satisfy That, because the Essence was one and the fame ; I observed, that Essence might be one and the same; because indivisible, or indifcerpible I ndiscerpibility was no Bar to Distinction and distinct Actions Therefore the Father and the Son might act diftin&tly in giving and receiving Satisfaction.
Here I played my Cannon fo briskly, 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 most, when in the deepest Distress; You at last, collected in yourself, bid me Defiance. I am sorry to find your Strength bears no Proportion to your Heroism. For, wanting, better Weapons, you begin the Onset with small Shot; aliàs, Indifcerpible Atoms, Your Metaphysical Forces must be very poor and languid, when you were forced to call in Natural Philofophy to your Aid.
These Indifcerpible Atoms, by your own Confeffion, are not absolutely indifcerpible. But the Deity, if he does consist of Parts, consists of Parts essentially unmoveable from each other, and unpartible, without an express Contradiction in Terms. For all
. Gg 4 Division
División implies Limitation, and Limitation is contrary to our Ideas of the Deity, He cannot be divided without ceasing to be infinite ; because where there is a Charm (and Division makes à Chasm) there can be no Infinity; and He cannot ceafe to be infinite, without ceasing to be God. He is neceffarily what he is, consequently if he be undivided, he must be necess Jarily undivided, añid neceffarily indivifible. By Parts then in the Deity, if the Scheme of Extension be granted, we must not understand what is partible (for that is only true of corporeal Parts) but Metaphysical Parts; or so much of the Divine Substance, as is commenfurate to such an affignable Portion of Matter. And to argue, that because Physical Parts are separable, therefore Metaphyfical Parts must be fo too, is a very inconclusive Way of Arguing; It is Tranhito à Genere ad Genus. Thus the happy Beam of Light, which you bad Aruck upon, provès to be nothing else but an Ignis Fatuús.
You tell me, that Indifcerpibility infers Parts, and I am sure Discerpibility does. Hard Fate for those who would prove the Deity Impartible! for he must, it seems, have Parts, if he be either discer pible, or indifcerpible ; 'either divisible, or indivisible.
The Sum and Substance of what I would say is this-That your indifcerpible Atoms consist of above and under ; of this and that
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 Himself: 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 disprove, that Indissoluble Union may constitute Unity, etc. and I take the same Privilege to refer to what I have said above in Proof of it. I never adopted the extended Scheme ; but, because You supposed it; in Complaisance to you I argued from it; not ignorant, in the mean Time, that the Trinity would stand it's Ground upon the Scheme of Non-Extension, perhaps with greater, I am sure 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, LOCKĖ, TILLOTSON, CLARK E, and NEWTON? To which I add, with Pleasure, my ingenious Correspondent in the former Part of his Letter.
What you fay below in this page about a Contradiction, I have answered towards the Beginning of this Letter. Indiscerpibility is a negative Idea. I am glad, that Indifcera pibility is no Bar to Distinction, and distinct
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 short-lived and fleeting are human Joys! Casting my Eyes upon another Page, I find you deny what you before allowed ; and tell me, that Indivisibility is an Obstruction to Distinction. 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 Scenes Nothing but your Request, which shall have always the Force of an authoritative Command with me, could prevail upon me to proceed to re-consider with great Reluctance your poor unfortunate Tritheistical Hypothesis.
The first Argument I produced against it was drawn from Mofes, and our Saviour, who quotes the Text. Hear, O Israel, the Lord (ehavah) your God is one Lord; one necessarily-existing Substance. It is very observable that, after our Saviour had quoted these Words, when the Scribe faid, There is one God, and there is none other but He, Chrift commends the Scribe for having answered discreetly : Which he could not have done, if, besides that only God (none other but He) there had been a Trinity of Gods (according to Your Scheme) to be wor.
mut He) there our Scheme) to thipped.