Now let me ask you two questions:
, Whether
it be agreeable to the usage either of philosophers or others to
give the name to an unextended active being? And,
, Whether it be not ridiculously absurd to misapply
names contrary to the common use of language?
. Well then, let it not be called Matter, since you
will have it so, but some distinct from Matter and
Spirit. For what reason is there why you should call it Spirit?
Does not the notion of spirit imply that it is thinking, as well
as active and unextended?
. My reason is this: because I have a mind to have
some notion of meaning in what I say: but I have no notion of any
action distinct from volition, neither. can I conceive volition
to be anywhere but in a spirit: therefore, when I speak of an
active being, I am obliged to mean a Spirit. Beside, what can be
plainer than that a thing which hath no ideas in itself cannot
impart them to me; and, if it hath ideas, surely it must be a
Spirit. To make you comprehend the point still more {240} clearly
if it be possible, I assert as well as you that, since we are
affected from without, we must allow Powers to be without, in a
Being distinct from ourselves.
Pages:
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151