Dialogue

 1 1|          to my mind the notions of God, virtue, truth, &c. Now,
 2 1|            it were absurd to think GOD or VIRTUE sensible things;
 3 1|        objects, as VIRTUE, REASON, GOD, or the like, thus much
 4 2|         too who believe there is a God, and that He knows and comprehends
 5 2|          are known or perceived by God, because they believe the
 6 2|        they believe the being of a God; whereas I, on the other
 7 2|            conclude the being of a God, because all sensible things
 8 2|          beings to be perceived by God, yet they attribute to them
 9 2|         between saying, THERE IS A GOD, THEREFORE HE PERCEIVES
10 2|       THERE IS AN INFINITE MIND OR GOD? This furnishes you with
11 2|       principle, of the BEING OF A GOD. Divines and philosophers
12 2|          it was the workmanship of God. But that—setting aside
13 2|            of SEEING ALL THINGS IN GOD?~PHIL. I would gladly know
14 2|        union with the substance of God, which, being spiritual,
15 2|            essence or substance of God, who is an impassive, indivisible,
16 2|          that we see all things in God? If I mistake not, what
17 2|          Scripture saith, “That in God we live and move and have
18 2|          intelligible Substance of God. This I do not understand;
19 2|     surprising. But, allowing that God is the supreme and universal
20 2|            be thought to deny that God, or an infinite Spirit,
21 2|             Is it that you imagine God cannot act as well without
22 2|         the infinite perfection of God; that is, by your own confession,
23 2|            at the presence whereof God excites ideas in our minds.~
24 2|         PHIL. You acknowledge then God alone to be the cause of
25 2|       which you say are present to God, without doubt He perceives.~
26 2|            the wisdom and power of God; and whether it doth not
27 2|           perceived by the mind of God, which are to Him the occasion
28 3|           him from the veracity of God; or to pretend our knowledge
29 3|         and inert.~HYL. And is not God an agent, a being purely
30 3|            represent the nature of God?~PHIL. It cannot.~HYL. Since
31 3|        have no IDEA of the mind of God, how can you conceive it
32 3|           can conceive the mind of God, without having an idea
33 3|        properly no IDEA, either of God or any other spirit; for
34 3|            an image or likeness of God—though indeed extremely
35 3|           all the notion I have of God is obtained by reflecting
36 3|           infer the existence of a God, and of all created things
37 3|      created things in the mind of God. So much for your first
38 3|        sort of an idea or image of God. But, at the same time,
39 3|           IN) the infinite mind of God. Probably he may not at
40 3|            from being perceived by God, and exterior to all minds.
41 3|            by the infinite mind of God, in whom “we five, and move,
42 3|            hundred places. In them God is represented as the sole
43 3|          Philonous, that in making God the immediate Author of
44 3|         case therefore you suppose God to act by the mediation
45 3|        physical action, the making God an immediate cause of all
46 3|           I have nowhere said that God is the only agent who produces
47 3|     ultimately indeed derived from God, but immediately under the
48 3|        imagine any imperfection in God?~PHIL. Without a doubt.~
49 3|             and is not that Spirit God?~PHIL. I grant it.~HYL.
50 3|         pain and uneasiness are in God; or, in other words, God
51 3|           God; or, in other words, God suffers pain: that is to
52 3|          contradiction.~PHIL. That God knows or understands all
53 3|        make no question. But, that God, though He knows and sometimes
54 3|            painful and uneasy. But God, whom no external being
55 3|       immediately perceivable. But God is a Pure Spirit, disengaged
56 3|           former, I say, agrees to God, but not the latter. God
57 3|           God, but not the latter. God knows, or hath ideas; but
58 3|            all, can it be supposed God would deceive all mankind?
59 3| thoughtlessness, may be imputed to God, as the Author of it, I
60 3|        were framed and given us by God, that it is impossible we
61 3|         tell you, I do not suppose God has deceived mankind at
62 3|           the beginning created by God, I make no question. If
63 3|           mean this with regard to God, but His creatures. All
64 3|     objects are eternally known by God, or, which is the same thing,
65 3|     creatures, are, by a decree of God, perceptible to them, then
66 3|        dependence of all things on God; and consequently hath all
67 3|           eternally in the mind of God? Did they not therefore
68 3|           you too of opinion, that God knew all things from eternity?~
69 3|          in respect of the mind of God. So we are agreed in that
70 3|     existence, or be created, when God decreed they should become
71 3|         say it is for the glory of God. For, allowing it to be
72 3|         extrinsical to the mind of God, as well as to the minds
73 3|           but as to this decree of God’s, for making things perceptible,
74 3|        Philonous? Is it not plain, God did either execute that
75 3|            and having a beginning. God is a Being of transcerident
76 3|         everlasting in the mind of God. Is not this agreeable to
77 3|          as having been created by God; think you not the sensible
78 3|           learning. The being of a God, and incorruptibility of
79 3|          When I say the being of a God, I do not mean an obscure
80 3|            have no conception, but God, in the strict and proper
81 3|            nothing else but IDEAS; God is a SPIRIT, but Matter
82 3|    unlimited power in their cause; God is active and omnipotent,
83 3|           be sufficiently admired; God is infinitely wise and provident,
84 3|       disbelieve the Providence of God, because there may be some