Clarke saw the force of this argument; he was made to feel it by the arguments of his adversary, Leibnitz; but he answers it very weakly. He says that space has parts, but they are not separable. But, however this may be, it is certain that space has parts. True, in the idea of space we distinguish parts without separating them; but we really conceive them in it, and we cannot conceive space without them. Besides, if we should admit this theory, what would become of the proofs of the immateriality of the soul? If the infinite wisdom is extended, why may not the human soul with much more reason be so?
Carried away by his favorite idea, Clarke went so far as to write what we should not have expected from such a man, that: "In questions of this nature, when we speak of parts, we mean parts that are separable, composite, and disunited like those of matter, which for this reason is always a compound and never a simple substance. Matter is not one substance, but a composition of substances. This is why, in my opinion, matter is incapable of thinking. This incapacity does not proceed from extension, but from the parts being distinct substances, disunited, and independent of each other."[45] This explanation tends to destroy the simplicity of thinking beings; for by simplicity has always been understood the absolute wanting of all parts and not the absence of this or that kind of parts. Inseparability does not destroy the existence of parts; it merely asserts the force of cohesion.
70. It is also to be feared that this doctrine opens the door to pantheism. It was even objected to Clarke that it made God the soul of the world, and although he defended himself from this charge, there still remains an objection which was not proposed to him, and which is a very serious one. If we say that God is space, or that space is a property of God, what hinders our saying that God is the world, or that the world is a property of God? The world is extended; but so is space. If God and space are not contradictory ideas in the same being, why are God and the universe contradictory? Clarke says that bodies are composed of different substances, that they are not one substance; but it is certain that all we know of bodies is that they are extended, and that they cause certain impressions in us. Since, then, extension is not repugnant to God, and much less so the causality of impressions, there can be no reason against saying that what Clarke calls distinct substances, are only the parts, or, if he prefers it, the properties of the infinite substance. Newton went so far as to say that space was the sensorium of God, and even Clarke maintained against Leibnitz that Newton's expression might bear a sound interpretation, as it was intended only as a comparison. But Leibnitz insists so strongly on this charge that it is plain that he had very great objections to this word.
71. Whatever tends to confound God with nature, or to place him in constant communication with it, otherwise than by pure acts of intellect and will, places us on a very slippery declivity, where we can hardly help being precipitated to the bottom, and at this bottom is pantheism, which is but a phasis of atheism.[(30)]
[CHAPTER XI.]
FENELON'S OPINION.
72. Clarke's opinion is very similar to that of Fenelon, who in his Treatise on the existence and attributes of God, explains immensity in a very surprising manner. He says: "After considering the eternity and immutability of God, which are the same thing, I ought to examine his immensity. Since he is by himself, he is sovereignly, and since he is sovereignly, he has all being in himself. Since he has all being in himself, he has without doubt extension; extension is a manner of being, of which I have an idea. I have already seen that my ideas upon the essence of things, are real degrees of being, which actually exist in God, and are possible out of him, because he can produce them. Therefore, extension is in him; he can produce it outside of himself, only because it is contained in the fulness of his being."
To a certain extent the words of Fenelon may be explained in a sense which most theologians would not reject. They distinguish two classes of perfections; those which involve no imperfection; such as wisdom, holiness, and justice; and those which involve imperfection, as, for example, all which belong to bodies, extension, form, etc. The former, which are also called perfections simpliciter, are in God formaliter; that is to say, just as they are, because their nature involves no kind of imperfection, and, therefore, in God, they do not diminish nor tarnish his infinite perfection. Those of the second class, which are called perfections secundum quid, are in God not formaliter; for the imperfection which they involve is repugnant to his infinite perfection, but virtualiter or eminenter; that is to say, that all the perfection, all the being which they contain is in God, who is infinite perfection, infinite being; and God can produce them exteriorly by his creative omnipotence. But inasmuch as they pre-exist in an infinite being, they are freed from all limitation and imperfection, and identified with the infinite essence, and have a mode of being far superior to what they are in reality. This is expressed by the term eminenter.