Leckie, Charles A REPLY TO THE VINDICATION OF THE REMARKS UPON Mr. LESLIE's First Dialogue On the SOCINIAN Controverfy. By the AUTHER of the DIALOGUES. LONDON, Printed for Geo. Strahan over against the Royal Exchange, Cornhill. 1708, A REPLY (1.) TO THE Vindication of the Remarks, &c. SIR, Y Our Complements to me of Poor, weak Arguments, Foolish, Abfurd, Ridiculous, &c. wou'd have made me believe you had been very Angry with me, but that at the Clofe of your Letter you Affure me, that you are Acted herein by no Paffion. (2.) Yet you feem Mov'd at what I fay of Mr. Biddle, who Reviv'd the Old Exploded Herefy of the Anthropomorphits, who held God to have a Body, and of the Shape of a Man, for fo they understood our being made after the Image of God, to be meant of the Shape of His Body. Was your Concern A for Mr. Biddle because he was likewise a Socinian, and one of your Principal Writers? But this looks the more Sufpicious and lefs to your Advantage, because of what you fay, p. 5. I may doubt whether God be a pure Spirit, or be only a gross Body. (3.) But now, Sir, as to your Vindication, I might give this Short Reply, That it is one General Miftake of my Answer from Top to Bottom. You begin p. 1. with Suppofing, That I admit there are Irreconcilable Contradictions in my Scheme of Faith; and therefore, in order to Support my Notions, I endeavour to Support the Credit of plain Contradictions; intimating, That we conceive of God no otherwife than as a Blind Man of Sight, i. e. 2 with with a mind full of Contradictions. And you go on with this Notion, and Repeat it often every Page, That I Allow of Contradictions in the H. Trinity, and Defend them. of the H. Trinity from thofe Contradictions Charg'd upon it by the Socinians, you had only found fault with my Performance. But to fay, That I Allow of thefe Contradictions, and Defend them, when I exprefly Oppofe them, and you cannot but know was the very Purpose and Intent of my Undertaking, has fomething in it for which I want a Proper Name: All I. fhall fay, is, That if this Miftake was not Wilful, I have no Dangerous Adverfary. the Perception of one cannot be Apprehended by the Perception of any of the others. And if we Apply the One Strictly to the other, we fhall fall into Contradictions, like that I mention'd of Explaining the Progrefs of Sight by that of (4.) If you had faid I had fail'in Refcuing our DoctrinLeggs. Which is a Contradiction to a Man Born Blind, while he Conceives of Sight after the Manner of the Motion of Leggs. And it wou'd be the fame Contradiction for the Eyes, as for the Leggs, to Move two Tards as foon as one. Therefore the Blind Man do's not Suppofe that the Eyes move as the Leggs do, for then Sight wou'd be a downright Contradiction to him, and he cou'd not Believe it. But he knows this is made ufe of only as an Allufion to him. And het fuppofes that the Perception of Sight is quite of a Different Nature from the Motion of Leggs, and that ther is u Contradiction in it, tho' he knows not what it is. (5.) But how came you to Suppofe that a Blind Man thinks Sight to be a Contradiction? If he Thought fo, he could not Believe ther was or cou'd be any fuch thing. Ther is no Blind Man but Belieus, ther is fuch a thing as Sight, becaufe others tell him fo who have it. But he knows not what it is, nor can we Explain it to him. For we can Explain it no otherwife than by Allufion to fome of thofe Senfes which he has. And the Senfes are fo Different from Each other, that 3 like the Blind man who wou'd Measure Sight by the Motion of Leggs. But then, as the Blind Man Belieyes Sight, and that ther is no Contradiction in it, and is Senfible that the feeming Contradiction arifes only from Purfuing the Parallel of Leggs and Eyes too Strictly: So we Believe that ther is no Contradiction at all in the H. Trinity of God, but that the Seeming Contradiction arifes only from our Applying too Strictly what is Spoke of God, after the Manner of Men. For we have no Words, whereby we can Speak Properly of God. As we have None whereby to speak of Sight or Colours to a Blind Man. (7.) I once Difcours'd with a man Born Blind, and having Explain'd Sight to him as well as I cou'd, I at laft Ask'd him what he thought it was Like ? And after Confidering a little he faid he thought it was like a Wheel. A Wheel! Said I, why a Wheel? Becaufe, faid he, You tell me that Sight Perceives feveral things at once, and things Diftant as foon as things nearer hand. Now when a Wheel turns fwift round, I feel all the Parts of it almoft at the fame time, and the fartheft Part of the Rimm is presently next to me. I proI profefs I cou'd not Mend his Notion, nor find any. Word whereby to Exprefs Sight more to his Apprehenfion. Now then fuppofe the Word Wheel were pitch'd upon to Exprefs Sight to Men Born Blind. Yet they wou'd not think Sight to be a Wheel. Nor think ther were thofe Contradictions in Sight which might Evidently be Infer'd from its being a Wheel. Because they wou'd know at the fame time, That it was but a Borrow'd Word, by way of Allufion, and not Strictly and Properly belonging to Sight, nor fully Expreffive of it. (8.) And may we not make the like Allowance as to the word Perfon when Apply'd to God? We have not a Word more Proper. And yet if we Apply it to God, with all the Properties and Qualifications belonging to Men, what Mistakes and even Contradictions may we fall into? Which yet will not Imply any Contradiction in God. But what fo feems arifes only from our Conceiving of God after the Manner of Men. (9.) If you then ask me, why we make ufe of fuch Words? I anfwer, because we have no Better, And (as you fay p. 7. of God's being faid to Repent, Grieve, &c.) I fhou'd not dare to use them of God, if the Scripture had not done done it. If the Scripture had not told Us of Three in Heaven, we had Never Spoke of a Trinity. But when these things are Reveal'd to Us, we are oblig'd to Receive them. And |