« AnteriorContinuar »
Though an human Soul is a Spirit as well3* as God; yet Spirit, or immaterial Being, does not point out, as Body does, one determinate Kind of Being, but every Sort of Beings, that are not corporeal *. It is a negative Idea, a mere Denial of Mattes. As my Soul is of a quite different Essence, from the Table on which I write, though they are both Substance: So God transcends my Soul, though they are both Spirit, infinitely more, than my Soul can the Table. To argue then from our Nature to the divine j to fay that because the one' admits of no Distinction, but that of Modes and Substances the other may not: What is this> but to argue a pari, where there is an infinite Disparity, a boundless Disproportion ?''
idly, Those, who object that we must, either with the Sabellians, maintain the Persons to be three Modes only 5 or with the Tritheifts, three Substances, must first demonstrate, that Substance and Substance, however close and inviolable the Union may be, must necessarily make Substances; or that Being and Being, cannot be so united
* See Dr. Clarke on the Omnipresence, in the first Volume of his- Posthumous Sermons.
Vol.. II. G g as
Ser.vui.as to be one. For if they cannot demonstrate this, there will be this plain Medium between Sabellianism and Tritbeism, that the three Persons will be more than three Modes, each being Substance; and yet not three Substances, because indissoluble Union of Substance with Substance may constitute Unity ; or whatever is ej'entially and necessarily united, may be ejseniially and necessarily one. Thus our Savir our's Words, J am in the Father, and the Father in me, will give the best Solution of the Difficulty.
I may observe farther, that either Being and Being in Union does not make Beings; or there is no such Thing as one Being in Nature, upon their Hypothecs, who maintain, as the most able Defender of jirianijm does maintain, that spiritual, as well as corporeal Beings, are extended. For each extended Being, it is well known, is nothing but Being and Being in Union j and only one, because of the Continuity of the Parts. He (that great Master of Reason) supposed the Deity to be infinitely expanded. It was likewise his Opinion, that there is no Medium between a Being and Nothing, and that Person is an intelligent Being. Well:
The Deity* according to his Scheme, mtfftSr^^
consist of an Infinity of Parti •—Each of
those Parts must be either a Being, or Nothingi—~Ezch of these Parts must be like*. • wife an intelligent Being. For an intelligent Whole cannot be made up of unin.telli~ gent Parts.—. And iffacb of these Parts be. an intelligent Being;--—*— ihzn each must be a Person y—'The, Conse^uenoe^pf; which is, that acqording to his Hypothesis, there must be as many Persons in an infinitely expanded Substance , as there are Parts. Thu9 this great Philosopher (for a great PhUosp* pher he certainly was) at the fame Time that he opposed the Catholic Scheme of threi Persons, in the fame undivided Substance j must, if consistent with himself, maintain, many more than three Persons, even an Infi* nity of Persons in the fame Substance*
Such is the Frailty of human Nature even in great Men. They can fee the leastMote of a Difficulty in another's Scheme y they cannot behold the Beams that is w* their own. ;.•;...; <• •„ •. it
Nor was he singular in that Opinion t Several able Philosophers, both at home and abroad,'have embraced the Scheme of£xtension. Now the fame Principle, viz. that . G g 2 Be