« הקודםהמשך »
let not that Inchanter Consciousnefs put asunder or disunite. This may ferve for an Answer to all you have said concerning Consciousness, which does not injure our Scheme, nor benefit your's. For Consciousness cannot divide the Substance. I have already proved your supposed three Substances to be indivisible: And you unfortunately grant, that divisible and diftinguijhable are the same; and so it cannot distinguish them either without dividing them, which is impossible. Thus you have got a Trinity of Gods, which are neither divisible nor diftinguishable
. Diftin&t without being divided is, you are pleased to say, 'unintelligible Jargon.
And now having dispatched your Scheme, what hinders but I might indulge my fatirical Vein after your Example, which I shall be proud to follow in every Thing else? But I scorn to insult the Dead Peace, everlasting Peace be to the Shade of
your most lamented, and indeed most lamentable Hypothesis ! O darling Offspring of a worthy Sire! Could either my generous Pity (For thou wait, vel Priamo miseranda) or thy Father's Prowess in War have faved thee, thou hadft not died. But when there are mala ştamina Vita; when the Vitals are unsound, all Human Endeavours are vain and ineffectual;
“Evandro, qualem meruit, Pallanta remitto;"
you back the dead Corpse to be buried in eternal Oblivion. I allow you, as you have an inexhaustible Fund of Wit, to say a World of fine Things upon it ; to strew the Flowers of your Oratory upon it's lifeless Carcase, and to pay the last fad unavailing Office to it's Manes
“ Manibus date lilia plenis" “ His faltem accumulem Donis & fungar
inani « Munere”.
Let not your paternal Tenderness carry you any farther.
Have no Recourse to magic Arts to call up it's fleeting Shade; or, if You do, do not expect that I should wage War with an unbodied Phantom.
“ Irruit ac ferro frustra diverberat Um
It would undoubtedly have been barbarous to rob
of your unfortunate Infant, if your Imagination had been barren. But you may well bear the Loss. and inventive Fancy, which is married to so masculine and regular a Judgment, will soon repair the Damage with a numerous Race of beautiful and lasting Productions, -“ Pulchrâ faciat Te Prole Parentem. H h
To return; I never affirmed, that “ Pere “ fon and Substance were únintelligible.” All this whole Paragraph turns upon that Mistake; and upon confounding Unintelligible with Incomprehensible.
In the next Paragraph you will not admit the Notion of an infinitely-extended Deity, for Fear it should draw along with it some Consequences, which would be injurious to your late dear departed Hypothesis. Well; will you
admit the Words of the Psalmist ? Whither shall I go then from thy Spirit, or whither Jall I go then from thy Presence? If I climb up into Heaven, thou art there : If I go down to Hell, thou art there also. If I take the Wings of the Morning, and remain in the uttermost parts of the Sea; even there alfo Mall thy Hand lead me, and thy RightHand fall hold me. Is not acting in Heaven distant and distinct from acting in Hell, or in the Sea ? And does not distinct, distant Action prove diftant, diftin&t Substance; or a local Distinction of Substance? “Can a Thing," say you,
“ be distinct from " itself?” No; if by Self you mean Perfonality, and the whole of that Personality. For then the Question would be ; Can the whole, as whole, be distinɛt from the whole ? But Substance effentially united to Substance, and therefore one, may admit of Distinction. Answer me this Question : Is the Substance, which is in Heaven, one individual Sub
ftance with that which filleth all Things ? And it will be an easy Matter to answer your's. God exists wholly in Heaven; or else there is only Part of God there. Well then ; according to the Scheme of NonExtension, to which you are a late Convert, can the same numerical Being be confined, and yet unconfined? “ Can there be a Diffu66 fion of it,” to use Dr. WATERLAND'S Words, “ every-where, and yet nothing “ be diffused ?” For it is supposed that the whole Essence is diffufed all over the Universe, and yet remains whole and undiffused in Heaven. According to the Scheme of Non-Extenson we have so many distinct, numerical Wholes, which make one numerical, diftin&t Whole, because essentially united. According to the Scheme of Extension, we have so many distinct numerical Parts, which have the whole Attributes residing in them, and yet make one numerical Substance, for the same Reason. Both agree, that the Divine Nature is distinct, though undivided.
Supposing my Soul had exactly the same Perfections as your's, (by the Way, I wish mine had) and were, by the Power of God, unalienably united; so that you became, in a literal Sense, Dimidium Anima mea, which you are now in a figurative one ; it is plain they would be one, as far as we understand any Thing of Unity. For when we perceive
any Object in a continued. Position, fenced out from other Things, we never fcruple to give it the Name of One; and being incapable of Separation, and being of the fame Kind and Degree, they might not only be called, but would really be striely One. But it is not so plain, that this Unity between us would be a Bar to all Distinction : You might exert yourself in a distinct Manner; You might be adorning Morality, while I was employed in dry Metaphyficks.
“ If three intelligent Acting Substances can be made out to be one intelligent
Acting Substance, then, étc.” Answer: This supposes Unity of Person and Unity of Substance to be equivalent. Whereas Plurality of Persons implies the Substance, though united, to be distinguished after such a Manner; Plurality of Substances implies the Substance to be divided. separable Persons are so
Substances; but Perfons having no possible Detachment the one from the other, are one Substance. The Persons then are each Substance, but not A Substance; because we never give the Name of A Substance but where the Substance is aliene, and independent of another. Person then, each Divine Person, as I said before, is Being, because it exists ; but not A Being, because the Persons do not exist separate.