hit your Thought at length, I affure you, it has coft me fome Pains; and I wish you would exprefs your felf more clearly hereafter.

Now then, let us apply this Mariner of Reafoning to another Purpose: By parity of Reason we may argue, that the Office of God the Father, commencing at the Creation; I say, the Office of Sustaining, Preferving, and Governing the World, has no Relation to the Time paft, being but just what it is, whether a longer or a fhorter, or no Time at all be allowed for any prior Exiftence; nor is it at all more perfect for the eternal past Duration of his Being. But does not this Argument fuppofe that the Office is fuch as may be discharged by a finite Creature, or one that began in Time? Certainly. And is not that the very Thing in Question in this, and in the other Cafe too? Undoubtedly. How then comes it to be taken for granted? Befides; is not a Perfon of unlimited, that is, eternal Powers and Perfections, more capable of difcharging an Office, than any Creature? Well then, by neceffary Confequence, the past Duration of the Perfon is of great Moment in the Cafe; and the Office must be thought as much more perfect, for the eternal past Duration of his Being, as God's Perfections excel thofe of his Creatures; and that is infinitely.

QUERY

Whether Eternity does not imply neceffary Existence of the Son; which is inconfiftent with the Doctor's Scheme? And whether the Doctor hath not made an elufive, Equivocating Anfwer to the Objection, fince the Son may be a neceffary Emanation from the Father, by the Will and Power of the Father, without any Contradiction? Will is one Thing, and Arbitrary Will another.

T

O the former part of the Query you anfwer, that fimple and abfolute Eternity is the fame with Neceflary, or Self-existence; which is no where fuppos'd of the Son, by Dr. Clarke.

Here are feveral Mistakes: For, first, the Idea of fimple Eternity is not the fame with that of Neceffary-exiftence. Nor, fecondly, is it the fame with both Neceffary existence and Self-existence, fuppofing it were the fame with the former because thefe two are not the fame. The Idea of Eternity is neither more nor lefs than Duration without beginning, and without end. Some have fuppofed it poffible for God to have created the World from all Eternity; and they ufe this Argument for it; that whatever He could once do, He could always do. Not that I think there is much weight in ★ Reply, p. 227.

K

the

the Argument; but it is fufficient to fhow, that' the Ideas are diftinct; and that, tho' Eter nity may, in found Reasoning, infer or imply Neceffary-existence, as is intimated in the Query; yet the Ideas are not the fame: For if they were; it would be Nonfenfe to talk of one inferring or implying the other. Then for the fecond Point; it is very manifeft that the Ideas of Neceffary-existence, and Self-existence (however they may be imagined with, or without Reafon, to imply each other) are not the fame Ideas. *Ariftotle, and the later Platonifts fuppofed the World and all the inferior Gods. (as Plato and the Pythagoreans, fome Supramundane Deities) to proceed, by way of Emanation, without any Temporary Production, from a Superior Caufe: That is, they believed them to be Neceffary, but not Selfexiftent. Something like this has been conftantly believed by the Chriftian Church, in refpect of the Aly: Which fhows, at least, that the Ideas are different; and not only fo, but that, in the Opinion of a great part of Mankind, they do not fo much as infer and imply each other; one may be conceived without the other. However, that is not the Point I infift on now. All that I affirm, at prefent, is, that the Ideas are diftinct; and not the very fame. After you had laboured to confound thefe Things together, you proceed to argue against

See Cudworth. Intellect. Syftem. p. 250, &r.

the

the Son's being eternal. But what is that to the Query? I fuppofed Dr. Clarke (Reply; p. 227.) to understand the word Eternal, as I, or any other Man fhould; and objected the inconfiftency of acknowledging the Eternity of the Son, and yet denying his Necessary-exiftence, which, Eternity, I thought, inferr'd and implied. You admit my reafoning to be juft, if the Doctor meant the fame, by Eternal, as I do. But if He meant by Eternal, Temporary, then my Argument fails; as most certainly it must. But why are we thus impofed on with fo manifest an abuse of Words? What occafion is there for putting the Epithets of fimple, abfolute, or metaphyfical to the word Eternal; which every one, that knows English, understands better without? Unless you fuppofe that there is an unlimited, and a limited Eternity; which is, in reality, an Eternity, and no Eternity. You proceed to difpute against the Eternity of the Son; which tho' it be fomething foreign to the purport of the Query, yet being pertinent to the Caufe in hand, I fhall here confider it. You argue that, if the Son be Eternal, He is Neceffarily exifting; which I allow and if Neceffarily exifting, then Self-exiftent; which I deny: and you cannot prove.

* ̓Αλλὰ μή τις, τὸ ἀεὶ, πρὸς ὑπόνοιαν ἀγιννήτου λαμβανέτω, ὡς οἷον οἱ τὰ ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια πεπηρωμένοι· οὔτε γὰρ το ἦν, οὔπ τὸ ἀεὶ, οὔτε τὸ πρὸ αἰώνων, ταυτόν ἐπὶ τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ. Alex. Ep. apud Theod. 1. 1. c. 4. p. 17. This was faid in Oppofition to the Arians, who wers willing to confound the Idea of Eternity and of Neceffary-existence, with Self-cxiftence. The Learned Doctor cites this Paffage, directly against

K 2

You

You go on to a new Confideration; which, put into Syllogifm, ftands thus.

Whatever has a principium is not Eternal: The Son has a principium, the Father being principium Filii-Therefore, &c.

The middle Term, principium, is equivocal, and bears two Senfes; wherefore the Syllogifm confifts of four Terms. If principium be understood in refpect of Time, the Minor is not true if it be taken in any other Senfe, the Major is not true: So that Both cannot be true. You might, in the fame way, argue that the Sun's Light is not coeval with the Sun; nor Thought coeval with the Mind, fuppofing the Mind to think always. For, in both Cafes, a principium is admitted; but no Priority, in refpect of Time. You add, that there is a reasonable Senfe in which the Son may be faid to be Eternal. I hope there is: But not your Senfe; which is just as reasonable, as to fay; an Angel is eternal, only becaufe you determine not the Time when He came into Being. I fhould think it most reafonable, to ufe Words, according to their obvious, and proper Signification; and not to fix new Ideas to old Words, without any warrant for it. In this way of going on with the abufe of Words, we fhall hardly have any left, full and exprefs enough

Himfelf (Script. Doctr. p. 283. alias 250.) It was intended, and is diametrically oppofite to the Doctor's leading Principle, or rather Fallacy, which runs thro' his Performance, viz. That the Son cannot be strictly and effentially God, unless He be Self-exiftent, or unoriginate in every Sense.

to