1797-] 
excellent; or how this is proved, becaufe 
nothing can have a more principal fub-- 
fiftence than being.’”’ To a perfon who 
has been in the habit of thinking deeply, 
nothing certainly can be clearer than this 
pofitieon. But, perhaps, it may be ren- 
dered more generally obyious, by attend- 
ing to the definition of deg, given by 
the Greek logicians. Being (lay they) 
is a thing fubfifting from itfelf, and 
which is independent of any thing elfe 
for its fubfiftence. This definition, very 
juftly affigns to being the nature of a re- 
ceptacle and foundation, in confequence 
of its being the recipient and fupport of 
other things, which are properly called 
accidents, and which cannot fubfift by 
themfelyes. The truth of this definition, 
too, is confirmed by the etymology of 
the word fubflance, which is fynony mous 
with deimg: for this word implies that 
which flands under fomething different 
from itfelf. 
It is evident, therefore, that nothing 
can have a more principal fubfiftence than 
being, fince dcing can exift without other 
things ; but other things are wholly de- 
pendent on deg for their fubfiftence. 
But that which is the principal is the 
ule excellent thing—Jderzg is the prin- 
cipal; and, therefore, beimg is the moft 
excellent thing. Hence, if intellect is 
our moft excellent, it is alfo our principal 
-part; and, confequently, is that in which 
our very effence confifts. 
SINBORON likewife obferves, ‘‘ That, 
allowing me all I contend for, I have 
merely taken a view of the po/fbrlitics of 
happinefs arifing from the nature of 
youth and man, without, in the leaft, 
confidering the impediments which arife 
-againft that happinefs, from the exifting 
evils of fociety; evils which render man 
more unhappy than the child, precifely 
in that degree in which he has greater 
Capacities of enjoyment.’ By this, 
SINBORON takes it for granted, that 
happinefs cannot fubfift in conjunétion 
with the exifting evils of fociety ; that 
every man muft unavoidably yield to the 
preffure of misfortune; and that incel- 
leétual good cannot be enjoyed, while 
‘calamity is prefent. But the writings and 
the lives of the moft venerable heroes of 
antiquity fufficiently prove, that thofe 
who fruly poffefs intellectual good, are not 
deprived of it by the hand of violence, 
or the ravages of difeafe ; but that this is 
a good fituated beyond the power of 
' chance, and the reach of change; in 
' fhort, they prove, that though health and 
eneceflaries of life are requifite to the 
¥ ‘ 

The Enquirer, No. XIV. 
187 
enjoyment of intellect in perfection, yet 
the truly worthy man, ‘will not be 
miferable in the midft of the greateft 
poverty and pain: but his inrelleftual 
{plendour will affiduoufly fhine in the 
penetralia of his foul, like a bright light 
fecured in a watch tower, which fhines 
with unremitted fplendour, though fur- 
rounded by ftormy winds and raging 
feas. : 
The only difference, indeed, that out. 
ward circumftances can produce in the 
conduét of the worthy man, feems to be 
this: that in adverfity he will energize 
magnanimoufly, bat in profperity magui- 
ficently; but all his energies will be 
attended with felicity, though the degree 
of it will be greater in fome circumftances- 
than in others. 
“The good man’s energies (fays 
Plotinus*) are not entirely prevented 
the changes of fortune, but different 
energies will take place in different 
fortunes, yet all of them equally honeft, 
and thofe, perhaps, more honeft, which 
rightly compofe jarring externals. But 
the energies of his contemplation, if they 
refpeét things particular, will, perhaps, 
be fuch as he ought to produce from 
enquiry and confideration; but the 
greateft difcipline always refides with 
him, and this more fo, though he fhould 
be placed in the du of Phalaris. For 
what is there pronounced in agony, is 
pronounced by that which is placed in 
torment, the external and /badowy mant, 
which is far different from the true mant, 
who, dweiling by himfelf, fo far as he 
neceflarily refides with “himfelf, never 
ceafes froin the contemplation of univerfal 
good.” Your’s, &c. ; 
Maner-Place, Walworth.- T.TAYior. 

DEE EN Qo TR ER Nox TV: 
QuESTION :—Wahat has been the probable 
Origin of ibe Notion of Perfunal Plurality 
in the Divine Naiure ? 
A DEO SIMPLICISSIMO RECEDUNT 
GRADATIM RERUM PRODUCTA- 
RUM CLASSES.—6urnet, Arch. Phil, 
THE CLASSES OF EMANATIONS RE- 
CEDE, BY DECREES, FROM THE 
PERFECT SIMPLICITY OF THE 
DIVINE. NATURE. 
ig was an obfervation of Antifthenes, 
the founder of the Cynic fe&, “ The 
gods of the people are many, but the 

* In his book: on Felicity.—Sce p. 44 of my 
tranflation of Five Books of Plotinus, 
+ i.e. the irsational part of our nature. 
t 1.¢. the rational foul, 
; God 
