The Living Temple

But then, if there be nothing of reason to be communicated, we are yet at a greater loss. For, if it be said having nothing else to communicate, they communicate themselves, but what is that self? is it a rational self? or is every single Atom, that enters this composition, reason? or is it a principle of reason? is it a seed? or is it a part? is it a thought? what shall we suppose? or what is there in the properties assigned to this sort of Atoms that can bespeak it any of these? And if none of these can be supposed; what doth their association signify towards ratiocination? They are little, what doth that contribute? therefore there may need the more of them to make a good large soul; but why must a little thing, devoid of reason, contribute more towards it than another somewhat bigger? They are light, doth that mend the matter? they are the sooner blown away, they can the less co-here, or keep together; they are the more easily capable of dissipation, the less of keeping their places in solemn counsel. They are round, and exactly smooth. But why do they the more conveniently associate upon that account for this purpose? They cannot therefore come so close together as they might have done, had they been of various figures. They cannot, indeed, give or receive so rude touches. ⟨p. 108⟩This signifies somewhat towards the keeping of state, but what doth it to the exercise of reason? Their being so perfectly and smoothly round makes them the more uncapable of keeping a steady station, they are the more in Janger of rolling away from one another, they can upon this account lay no hold of each other. Their counsels and resolves are likely to be the more lubricous, and liable to an uncertain volubility. It is not to be imagined what a collection of individuals only thus qualified can do when they are come together, an assembly thus constituted. Are we hence to expect Oracles, philosophical Determinations? Maxims of State? And since they are supposed to be so much alike, how are the Mathematical Atoms to be distinguished from the Moral? those from the Political? the Contemplative from the Active? or when the assembly thinks fit to entertain it self with matters of this or that kind, what must be its different composure or posture? into what mould or figure must it cast it self for one purpose? and into what for another?

But then, if there be nothing of reason to be communicated, we are yet at a greater loss. For, if it be said having nothing else to communicate, they communicate themselves, but what is that self? is it a rational self? or is every single Atom, that enters this composition, reason? or is it a principle of reason? is it a seed? or is it a part? is it a thought? what shall we suppose? or what is there in the properties assigned to this sort of Atoms that can bespeak it any of these? And if none of these can be supposed; what doth their association signifie towards ratiocination? They are little, what doth that contribute? therefore there may need the more of them to make a good large soul; but why must a little thing, devoid of reason, contribute more towards it than another somewhat bigger? They are light, doth that mend the matter? they are the sooner blown away, they can the less co-here, or keep together; they are the more easily capable of dissipation, the less of keeping their places in solemn counsel. They are round, and exactly smooth. But why do they the more conveniently associate upon that account for this purpose? They cannot therefore come so close together as they might have done, had they been of various figures. They cannot, indeed, give or receive so rude touches.