212 



as Dr. Priestley justly observes, at present rejected by the 

 most consistent immatei'ialists.* 



How God can act where he is not, is as easily conceived, 

 and as justly admissible, even if inconceivable, as that he 

 knows contingent events that are to happen in times, with 

 which he does not at present co-exist. As infinite know- 

 ledge is sufficient in the one case, infinite power is suffi- 

 cient in the other. 



As all the subsequent assertions of Dr. Clarke proceed 

 from the erroneous notions just mentioned, no farther 

 notice need be taken of them. But, as some of his ar- 

 guments, in favour of extramundane space, have an im- 

 posing appearance, I must shew that they are destitute of 

 any reasonable ground. 



First, he takes for granted, that if this world be not 

 infinite, it is moveable by the power of God: and, con- 

 sequently, that there are two places; one from which, 

 and the other towards which it may be moved. 



To this I make this short reply, that, if there were but 

 one body in existence, there could be no motion: for 



there 



* Disquisitions on Matter and Spirit, §. 6. But he was deceived in con- 

 ceiving this opinion to be entirely modern ; for it was the opinion of Cle- 

 mens Alexandrinus, 2 Strom, circa Medium ; and John Damascene, De Fide, 

 cap. xiv. who expressly says, God is no where ; and Gregory of Nyssus, ad- 

 versus Eunom. Lib. I, denies that angels, or any intelligent beings, bear any 

 relation to space. Boetius Hebd. says, that incorporeal substances cannot be 

 said to be in any place. The Thomists also hold, that angels cannot be said 

 to be in any place but metaphorically. See Gonet, 342, foHo. 



