3P ANTIENT METAPHYSICS. Book L 



term for exprcffing the mere pamvity of any thing : Nor do I well 

 conceive how it can be applied, except to elaftic bodies, which, no 

 doubt, acl as well 2,^JuJer *. 



But, is there no change in the agent as well as the patient ? There 

 is, when the agent changes from' a ftate of rejl to aclivity. But, fup- 

 pofe a being to energize continually, as we conceive of fuperior na- 

 tures, to whom the di^in»fiion above mentioned, betwixt capacity and, 

 energy, does not apply. In fuch beings there is no change from inac- 

 th'ity to aciinjity. And, if we can fuppofe, in fuch a being, no fuc- 

 cefTion of energies, or paffing from one to another, but, as Philoponus 

 exprefles it, in the paffage above quoted f) ^l^ ihe energies throzvn oui 

 at onccy then there is no change at all in the agent. And this is the 

 idea we ought to have of the Supreme Being, as fhall be afterwards 

 more fully explained. 



But what fhall we fay of the energies of inferior minds, fuch as ours, 

 which either do not energize perpetually, or at lead energize by 

 fucceflion ? Can they be faid lofiiffer when they energize ? As, for ex- 

 ample, when a man having acquired the fcience, or hah'it of a geo- 



. meter, 



* If the Newtonian philofophers had not aflerted, in the clearefl: terms, the 

 mere pafliyity of matter, and its indifference, cither to motion or reft, one fhould 

 have thought, by their way of exprelTing this Jaw of nature, that they imagined 

 matter, qua matter, had a power of a6iion in it ; for this the term re-a6lion 

 Icems to import. But, as Baxter, in his Enquiry into the nature of the human foul, 

 has well obferv^, it denotes no more than refijlance or rc/tjiency, which is neceffarily 

 implied in all pafTion ; for we cannot conceive pafTiun without foivic reliflance. Butthen 

 this reCftance miifl be overcome, otherwife there can be no imprejjion made^ nor any 

 change of any kind produced in the patient ; and, if lo, how can aclion and refiftance 

 be equal ; therefore I doubt whether, even with that explication, the maxim be true. 

 But the truth is, when properly expreffed, what I h.^ve laid down in the text, that ac- 

 tion zndipafficn are equal, in fo far as they muft neccflarijy correfpond toone another. I 

 have heard another meaning given to this Jaw of motion, viz. that as much force as the 

 ac7zY'^ body communicates to the /><2/7t;r, fo much it lofesof its own : But, even in this 

 way underftood, it is not expreffed properly, nor with that clearncfs and accuracy, 

 with which an ;ixIom fliould be expreffed. 



