1710 A TREATISE CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE by
George Berkeley TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THOMAS, EARL OF PEMBROKE,
&c., KNIGHT OF THE MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER AND ONE
OF THE LORDS OF HER MAJESTY'S MOST HONOURABLE PRIVY COUNCIL MY
LORD, You will perhaps wonder that an obscure person, who has
not the honour to be known to your lordship, should presume to
address you in this manner. But that a man who has written something
with a design to promote Useful Knowledge and Religion in the
world should make choice of your lordship for his patron, will
not be thought strange by any one that is not altogether unacquainted
with the present state of the church and learning, and consequently
ignorant how great an ornament and support you are to both. Yet,
nothing could have induced me to make you this present of my poor
endeavours, were I not encouraged by that candour and native goodness
which is so bright a part in your lordship's character. I might
add, my lord, that the extraordinary favour and bounty you have
been pleased to show towards our Society gave me hopes you would
not be unwilling to countenance the studies of one of its members.
These considerations determined me to lay this treatise at your
lordship's feet, and the rather because I was ambitious to have
it known that I am with the truest and most profound respect,
on account of that learning and virtue which the world so justly
admires in your lordship, MY LORD, Your lordship's most humble
and most devoted servant, GEORGE BERKELEY PREFACE PREFACE WHAT
I here make public has, after a long and scrupulous inquiry, seemed
to me evidently true and not unuseful to be known- particularly
to those who are tainted with Scepticism, or want a demonstration
of the existence and immateriality of God, or the natural immortality
of the soul. Whether it be so or no I am content the reader should
impartially examine; since I do not think myself any farther concerned
for the success of what I have written than as it is agreeable
to truth. But, to the end this may not suffer, I make it my request
that the reader suspend his judgment till he has once at least
read the whole through with that degree of attention and thought
which the subject-matter shall seem to deserve. For, as there
are some passages that, taken by themselves, are very liable (nor
could it be remedied) to gross misinterpretation, and to be charged
with most absurd consequences, which, nevertheless, upon an entire
perusal will appear not to follow from them; so likewise, though
the whole should be read over, yet, if this be done transiently,
it is very probable my sense may be mistaken; but to a thinking
reader, I flatter myself it will be throughout clear and obvious.
As for the characters of novelty and singularity which some of
the following notions may seem to bear, it is, I hope, needless
to make any apology on that account. He must surely be either
very weak, or very little acquainted with the sciences, who shall
reject a truth that is capable of demonstration, for no other
reason but because it is newly known, and contrary to the prejudices
of mankind. Thus much I thought fit to premise, in order to prevent,
if possible, the hasty censures of a sort of men who are too apt
to condemn an opinion before they rightly comprehend it. INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION 1. Philosophy being nothing else but the study of
wisdom and truth, it may with reason be expected that those who
have spent most time and pains in it should enjoy a greater calm
and serenity of mind, a greater clearness and evidence of knowledge,
and be less disturbed with doubts and difficulties than other
men. Yet so it is, we see the illiterate bulk of mankind that
walk the high-road of plain common sense, and are governed by
the dictates of nature, for the most part easy and undisturbed.
To them nothing that is familiar appears unaccountable or difficult
to comprehend. They complain not of any want of evidence in their
senses, and are out of all danger of becoming Sceptics. But no
sooner do we depart from sense and instinct to follow the light
of a superior principle, to reason, meditate, and reflect on the
nature of things, but a thousand scruples spring up in our minds
concerning those things which before we seemed fully to comprehend.
Prejudices and errors of sense do from all parts discover themselves
to our view; and, endeavouring to correct these by reason, we
are insensibly drawn into uncouth paradoxes, difficulties, and
inconsistencies, which multiply and grow upon us as we advance
in speculation, till at length, having wandered through many intricate
mazes, we find ourselves just where we were, or, which is worse,
sit down in a forlorn Scepticism. 2. The cause of this is thought
to be the obscurity of things, or the natural weakness and imperfection
of our understandings. It is said, the faculties we have are few,
and those designed by nature for the support and comfort of life,
and not to penetrate into the inward essence and constitution
of things. Besides, the mind of man being finite, when it treats
of things which partake of infinity, it is not to be wondered
at if it run into absurdities and contradictions, out of which
it is impossible it should ever extricate itself, it being of
the nature of infinite not to be comprehended by that which is
finite. 3. But, perhaps, we may be too partial to ourselves in
placing the fault originally in our faculties, and not rather
in the wrong use we make of them. It is a hard thing to suppose
that right deductions from true principles should ever end in
consequences which cannot be maintained or made consistent. We
should believe that God has dealt more bountifully with the sons
of men than to give them a strong desire for that knowledge which
he had placed quite out of their reach. This were not agreeable
to the wonted indulgent methods of Providence, which, whatever
appetites it may have implanted in the creatures, doth usually
furnish them with such means as, if rightly made use of, will
not fail to satisfy them. Upon the whole, I am inclined to think
that the far greater part, if not all, of those difficulties which
have hitherto amused philosophers, and blocked up the way to knowledge,
are entirely owing to ourselves- that we have first raised a dust
and then complain we cannot see. 4. My purpose therefore is, to
try if I can discover what those Principles are which have introduced
all that doubtfulness and uncertainty, those absurdities and contradictions,
into the several sects of philosophy; insomuch that the wisest
men have thought our ignorance incurable, conceiving it to arise
from the natural dulness and limitation of our faculties. And
surely it is a work well deserving our pains to make a strict
inquiry concerning the First Principles of Human Knowledge, to
sift and examine them on all sides, especially since there may
be some grounds to suspect that those lets and difficulties, which
stay and embarrass the mind in its search after truth, do not
spring from any darkness and intricacy in the objects, or natural
defect in the understanding, so much as from false Principles
which have been insisted on, and might have been avoided. 5. How
difficult and discouraging soever this attempt may seem, when
I consider how many great and extraordinary men have gone before
me in the like designs, yet I am not without some hopes- upon
the consideration that the largest views are not always the clearest,
and that he who is short-sighted will be obliged to draw the object
nearer, and may, perhaps, by a close and narrow survey, discern
that which had escaped far better eyes. 6. In order to prepare
the mind of the reader for the easier conceiving what follows,
it is proper to premise somewhat, by way of Introduction, concerning
the nature and abuse of Language. But the unravelling this matter
leads me in some measure to anticipate my design, by taking notice
of what seems to have had a chief part in rendering speculation
intricate and perplexed, and to have occasioned innumerable errors
and difficulties in almost all parts of knowledge. And that is
the opinion that the mind hath a power of framing abstract ideas
or notions of things. He who is not a perfect stranger to the
writings and disputes of philosophers must needs acknowledge that
no small part of them are spent about abstract ideas. These are
in a more especial manner thought to be the object of those sciences
which go by the name of Logic and Metaphysics, and of all that
which passes under the notion of the most abstracted and sublime
learning, in all which one shall scarce find any question handled
in such a manner as does not suppose their existence in the mind,
and that it is well acquainted with them. 7. It is agreed on all
hands that the qualities or modes of things do never really exist
each of them apart by itself, and separated from all others, but
are mixed, as it were, and blended together, several in the same
object. But, we are told, the mind being able to consider each
quality singly, or abstracted from those other qualities with
which it is united, does by that means frame to itself abstract
ideas. For example, there is perceived by sight an object extended,
coloured, and moved: this mixed or compound idea the mind resolving
into its simple, constituent parts, and viewing each by itself,
exclusive of the rest, does frame the abstract ideas of extension,
colour, and motion. Not that it is possible for colour or motion
to exist without extension; but only that the mind can frame to
itself by abstraction the idea of colour exclusive of extension,
and of motion exclusive of both colour and extension. 8. Again,
the mind having observed that in the particular extensions perceived
by sense there is something common and alike in all, and some
other things peculiar, as this or that figure or magnitude, which
distinguish them one from another; it considers apart or singles
out by itself that which is common, making thereof a most abstract
idea of extension, which is neither line, surface, nor solid,
nor has any figure or magnitude, but is an idea entirely prescinded
from all these. So likewise the mind, by leaving out of the particular
colours perceived by sense that which distinguishes them one from
another, and retaining that only which is common to all, makes
an idea of colour in abstract which is neither red, nor blue,
nor white, nor any other determinate colour. And, in like manner,
by considering motion abstractedly not only from the body moved,
but likewise from the figure it describes, and all particular
directions and velocities, the abstract idea of motion is framed;
which equally corresponds to all particular motions whatsoever
that may be perceived by sense. 9. And as the mind frames to itself
abstract ideas of qualities or modes, so does it, by the same
precision or mental separation, attain abstract ideas of the more
compounded beings which include several coexistent qualities.
For example, the mind having observed that Peter, James, and John
resemble each other in certain common agreements of shape and
other qualities, leaves out of the complex or compounded idea
it has of Peter, James, and any other particular man, that which
is peculiar to each, retaining only what is common to all, and
so makes an abstract idea wherein all the particulars equally
partake- abstracting entirely from and cutting off all those circumstances
and differences which might determine it to any particular existence.
And after this manner it is said we come by the abstract idea
of man, or, if you please, humanity, or human nature; wherein
it is true there is included colour, because there is no man but
has some colour, but then it can be neither white, nor black,
nor any particular colour, because there is no one particular
colour wherein all men partake. So likewise there is included
stature, but then it is neither tall stature, nor low stature,
nor yet middle stature, but something abstracted from all these.
And so of the rest. Moreover, their being a great variety of other
creatures that partake in some parts, but not all, of the complex
idea of man, the mind, leaving out those parts which are peculiar
to men, and retaining those only which are common to all the living
creatures, frames the idea of animal, which abstracts not only
from all particular men, but also all birds, beasts, fishes, and
insects. The constituent parts of the abstract idea of animal
are body, life, sense, and spontaneous motion. By body is meant
body without any particular shape or figure, there being no one
shape or figure common to all animals, without covering, either
of hair, or feathers, or scales, &c., nor yet naked: hair,
feathers, scales, and nakedness being the distinguishing properties
of particular animals, and for that reason left out of the abstract
idea. Upon the same account the spontaneous motion must be neither
walking, nor flying, nor creeping; it is nevertheless a motion,
but what that motion is it is not easy to conceive. 10. Whether
others have this wonderful faculty of abstracting their ideas,
they best can tell: for myself, I find indeed I have a faculty
of imagining, or representing to myself, the ideas of those particular
things I have perceived, and of variously compounding and dividing
them. I can imagine a man with two heads, or the upper parts of
a man joined to the body of a horse. I can consider the hand,
the eye, the nose, each by itself abstracted or separated from
the rest of the body. But then whatever hand or eye I imagine,
it must have some particular shape and colour. Likewise the idea
of man that I frame to myself must be either of a white, or a
black, or a tawny, a straight, or a crooked, a tall, or a low,
or a middle-sized man. I cannot by any effort of thought conceive
the abstract idea above described. And it is equally impossible
for me to form the abstract idea of motion distinct from the body
moving, and which is neither swift nor slow, curvilinear nor rectilinear;
and the like may be said of all other abstract general ideas whatsoever.
To be plain, I own myself able to abstract in one sense, as when
I consider some particular parts or qualities separated from others,
with which, though they are united in some object, yet it is possible
they may really exist without them. But I deny that I can abstract
from one another, or conceive separately, those qualities which
it is impossible should exist so separated; or that I can frame
a general notion, by abstracting from particulars in the manner
aforesaid- which last are the two proper acceptations of abstraction.
And there are grounds to think most men will acknowledge themselves
to be in my case. The generality of men which are simple and illiterate
never pretend to abstract notions. It is said they are difficult
and not to be attained without pains and study; we may therefore
reasonably conclude that, if such there be, they are confined
only to the learned. 11. I proceed to examine what can be alleged
in defence of the doctrine of abstraction, and try if I can discover
what it is that inclines the men of speculation to embrace an
opinion so remote from common sense as that seems to be. There
has been a late deservedly esteemed philosopher who, no doubt,
has given it very much countenance, by seeming to think the having
abstract general ideas is what puts the widest difference in point
of understanding betwixt man and beast. "The having of general
ideas," saith he, "is that which puts a perfect distinction
betwixt man and brutes, and is an excellency which the faculties
of brutes do by no means attain unto. For, it is evident we observe
no foot-steps in them of making use of general signs for universal
ideas; from which we have reason to imagine that they have not
the faculty of abstracting, or making general ideas, since they
have no use of words or any other general signs." And a little
after: "Therefore, I think, we may suppose that it is in
this that the species of brutes are discriminated from men, and
it is that proper difference wherein they are wholly separated,
and which at last widens to so wide a distance. For, if they have
any ideas at all, and are not bare machines (as some would have
them), we cannot deny them to have some reason. It seems as evident
to me that they do, some of them, in certain instances reason
as that they have sense; but it is only in particular ideas, just
as they receive them from their senses. They are the best of them
tied up within those narrow bounds, and have not (as I think)
the faculty to enlarge them by any kind of abstraction."-
Essay on Human Understanding, II. xi. 10 and 11. I readily agree
with this learned author, that the faculties of brutes can by
no means attain to abstraction. But then if this be made the distinguishing
property of that sort of animals, I fear a great many of those
that pass for men must be reckoned into their number. The reason
that is here assigned why we have no grounds to think brutes have
abstract general ideas is, that we observe in them no use of words
or any other general signs; which is built on this supposition-
that the making use of words implies the having general ideas.
From which it follows that men who use language are able to abstract
or generalize their ideas. That this is the sense and arguing
of the author will further appear by his answering the question
he in another place puts: "Since all things that exist are
only particulars, how come we by general terms?" His answer
is: "Words become general by being made the signs of general
ideas."- Essay on Human Understanding, IV. iii. 6. But it
seems that a word becomes general by being made the sign, not
of an abstract general idea, but of several particular ideas,
any one of which it indifferently suggests to the mind. For example,
when it is said "the change of motion is proportional to
the impressed force," or that "whatever has extension
is divisible," these propositions are to be understood of
motion and extension in general; and nevertheless it will not
follow that they suggest to my thoughts an idea of motion without
a body moved, or any determinate direction and velocity, or that
I must conceive an abstract general idea of extension, which is
neither line, surface, nor solid, neither great nor small, black,
white, nor red, nor of any other determinate colour. It is only
implied that whatever particular motion I consider, whether it
be swift or slow, perpendicular, horizontal, or oblique, or in
whatever object, the axiom concerning it holds equally true. As
does the other of every particular extension, it matters not whether
line, surface, or solid, whether of this or that magnitude or
figure. 12. By observing how ideas become general we may the better
judge how words are made so. And here it is to be noted that I
do not deny absolutely there are general ideas, but only that
there are any abstract general ideas; for, in the passages we
have quoted wherein there is mention of general ideas, it is always
supposed that they are formed by abstraction, after the manner
set forth in sections 8 and 9. Now, if we will annex a meaning
to our words, and speak only of what we can conceive, I believe
we shall acknowledge that an idea which, considered in itself,
is particular, becomes general by being made to represent or stand
for all other particular ideas of the same sort. To make this
plain by an example, suppose a geometrician is demonstrating the
method of cutting a line in two equal parts. He draws, for instance,
a black line of an inch in length: this, which in itself is a
particular line, is nevertheless with regard to its signification
general, since, as it is there used, it represents all particular
lines whatsoever; so that what is demonstrated of it is demonstrated
of all lines, or, in other words, of a line in general. And, as
that particular line becomes general by being made a sign, so
the name "line," which taken absolutely is particular,
by being a sign is made general. And as the former owes its generality
not to its being the sign of an abstract or general line, but
of all particular right lines that may possibly exist, so the
latter must be thought to derive its generality from the same
cause, namely, the various particular lines which it indifferently
denotes. 13. To give the reader a yet clearer view of the nature
of abstract ideas, and the uses they are thought necessary to,
I shall add one more passage out of the Essay on Human Understanding,
(IV. vii. 9) which is as follows: "Abstract ideas are not
so obvious or easy to children or the yet unexercised mind as
particular ones. If they seem so to grown men it is only because
by constant and familiar use they are made so. For, when we nicely
reflect upon them, we shall find that general ideas are fictions
and contrivances of the mind, that carry difficulty with them,
and do not so easily offer themselves as we are apt to imagine.
For example, does it not require some pains and skill to form
the general idea of a triangle (which is yet none of the most
abstract, comprehensive, and difficult); for it must be neither
oblique nor rectangle, neither equilateral, equicrural, nor scalenon,
but all and none of these at once? In effect, it is something
imperfect that cannot exist, an idea wherein some parts of several
different and inconsistent ideas are put together. It is true
the mind in this imperfect state has need of such ideas, and makes
all the haste to them it can, for the conveniency of communication
and enlargement of knowledge, to both which it is naturally very
much inclined. But yet one has reason to suspect such ideas are
marks of our imperfection. At least this is enough to show that
the most abstract and general ideas are not those that the mind
is first and most easily acquainted with, nor such as its earliest
knowledge is conversant about."- If any man has the faculty
of framing in his mind such an idea of a triangle as is here described,
it is in vain to pretend to dispute him out of it, nor would I
go about it. All I desire is that the reader would fully and certainly
inform himself whether he has such an idea or no. And this, methinks,
can be no hard task for anyone to perform. What more easy than
for anyone to look a little into his own thoughts, and there try
whether he has, or can attain to have, an idea that shall correspond
with the description that is here given of the general idea of
a triangle, which is "neither oblique nor rectangle, equilateral,
equicrural nor scalenon, but all and none of these at once?"
14. Much is here said of the difficulty that abstract ideas carry
with them, and the pains and skill requisite to the forming them.
And it is on all hands agreed that there is need of great toil
and labour of the mind, to emancipate our thoughts from particular
objects, and raise them to those sublime speculations that are
conversant about abstract ideas. From all which the natural consequence
should seem to be, that so difficult a thing as the forming abstract
ideas was not necessary for communication, which is so easy and
familiar to all sorts of men. But, we are told, if they seem obvious
and easy to grown men, it is only because by constant and familiar
use they are made so. Now, I would fain know at what time it is
men are employed in surmounting that difficulty, and furnishing
themselves with those necessary helps for discourse. It cannot
be when they are grown up, for then it seems they are not conscious
of any such painstaking; it remains therefore to be the business
of their childhood. And surely the great and multiplied labour
of framing abstract notions will be found a hard task for that
tender age. Is it not a hard thing to imagine that a couple of
children cannot prate together of their sugar-plums and rattles
and the rest of their little trinkets, till they have first tacked
together numberless inconsistencies, and so framed in their minds
abstract general ideas, and annexed them to every common name
they make use of? 15. Nor do I think them a whit more needful
for the enlargement of knowledge than for communication. It is,
I know, a point much insisted on, that all knowledge and demonstration
are about universal notions, to which I fully agree: but then
it doth not appear to me that those notions are formed by abstraction
in the manner premised- universality, so far as I can comprehend,
not consisting in the absolute, positive nature or conception
of anything, but in the relation it bears to the particulars signified
or represented by it; by virtue whereof it is that things, names,
or notions, being in their own nature particular, are rendered
universal. Thus, when I demonstrate any proposition concerning
triangles, it is to be supposed that I have in view the universal
idea of a triangle; which ought not to be understood as if I could
frame an idea of a triangle which was neither equilateral, nor
scalenon, nor equicrural; but only that the particular triangle
I consider, whether of this or that sort it matters not, doth
equally stand for and represent all rectilinear triangles whatsoever,
and is in that sense universal. All which seems very plain and
not to include any difficulty in it. 16. But here it will be demanded,
how we can know any proposition to be true of all particular triangles,
except we have first seen it demonstrated of the abstract idea
of a triangle which equally agrees to all? For, because a property
may be demonstrated to agree to some one particular triangle,
it will not thence follow that it equally belongs to any other
triangle, which in all respects is not the same with it. For example,
having demonstrated that the three angles of an isosceles rectangular
triangle are equal to two right ones, I cannot therefore conclude
this affection agrees to all other triangles which have neither
a right angle nor two equal sides. It seems therefore that, to
be certain this proposition is universally true, we must either
make a particular demonstration for every particular triangle,
which is impossible, or once for all demonstrate it of the abstract
idea of a triangle, in which all the particulars do indifferently
partake and by which they are all equally represented. To which
I answer, that, though the idea I have in view whilst I make the
demonstration be, for instance, that of an isosceles rectangular
triangle whose sides are of a determinate length, I may nevertheless
be certain it extends to all other rectilinear triangles, of what
sort or bigness soever. And that because neither the right angle,
nor the equality, nor determinate length of the sides are at all
concerned in the demonstration. It is true the diagram I have
in view includes all these particulars, but then there is not
the least mention made of them in the proof of the proposition.
It is not said the three angles are equal to two right ones, because
one of them is a right angle, or because the sides comprehending
it are of the same length. Which sufficiently shows that the right
angle might have been oblique, and the sides unequal, and for
all that the demonstration have held good. And for this reason
it is that I conclude that to be true of any obliquangular or
scalenon which I had demonstrated of a particular right-angled
equicrural triangle, and not because I demonstrated the proposition
of the abstract idea of a triangle And here it must be acknowledged
that a man may consider a figure merely as triangular, without
attending to the particular qualities of the angles, or relations
of the sides. So far he may abstract; but this will never prove
that he can frame an abstract, general, inconsistent idea of a
triangle. In like manner we may consider Peter so far forth as
man, or so far forth as animal without framing the fore-mentioned
abstract idea, either of man or of animal, inasmuch as all that
is perceived is not considered. 17. It were an endless as well
as an useless thing to trace the Schoolmen, those great masters
of abstraction, through all the manifold inextricable labyrinths
of error and dispute which their doctrine of abstract natures
and notions seems to have led them into. What bickerings and controversies,
and what a learned dust have been raised about those matters,
and what mighty advantage has been from thence derived to mankind,
are things at this day too clearly known to need being insisted
on. And it had been well if the ill effects of that doctrine were
confined to those only who make the most avowed profession of
it. When men consider the great pains, industry, and parts that
have for so many ages been laid out on the cultivation and advancement
of the sciences, and that notwithstanding all this the far greater
part of them remains full of darkness and uncertainty, and disputes
that are like never to have an end, and even those that are thought
to be supported by the most clear and cogent demonstrations contain
in them paradoxes which are perfectly irreconcilable to the understandings
of men, and that, taking all together, a very small portion of
them does supply any real benefit to mankind, otherwise than by
being an innocent diversion and amusement- I say the consideration
of all this is apt to throw them into a despondency and perfect
contempt of all study. But this may perhaps cease upon a view
of the false principles that have obtained in the world, amongst
all which there is none, methinks, hath a more wide and extended
sway over the thoughts of speculative men than this of abstract
general ideas. 18. I come now to consider the source of this prevailing
notion, and that seems to me to be language. And surely nothing
of less extent than reason itself could have been the source of
an opinion so universally received. The truth of this appears
as from other reasons so also from the plain confession of the
ablest patrons of abstract ideas, who acknowledge that they are
made in order to naming; from which it is a clear consequence
that if there had been no such things as speech or universal signs
there never had been any thought of abstraction. See III. vi.
39, and elsewhere of the Essay on Human Understanding. Let us
examine the manner wherein words have contributed to the origin
of that mistake.- First then, it is thought that every name has,
or ought to have, one only precise and settled signification,
which inclines men to think there are certain abstract, determinate
ideas that constitute the true and only immediate signification
of each general name; and that it is by the mediation of these
abstract ideas that a general name comes to signify any particular
thing. Whereas, in truth, there is no such thing as one precise
and definite signification annexed to any general name, they all
signifying indifferently a great number of particular ideas. All
which doth evidently follow from what has been already said, and
will clearly appear to anyone by a little reflexion. To this it
will be objected that every name that has a definition is thereby
restrained to one certain signification. For example, a triangle
is defined to be "a plain surface comprehended by three right
lines," by which that name is limited to denote one certain
idea and no other. To which I answer, that in the definition it
is not said whether the surface be great or small, black or white,
nor whether the sides are long or short, equal or unequal, nor
with what angles they are inclined to each other; in all which
there may be great variety, and consequently there is no one settled
idea which limits the signification of the word triangle. It is
one thing for to keep a name constantly to the same definition,
and another to make it stand everywhere for the same idea; the
one is necessary, the other useless and impracticable. 19. But,
to give a farther account how words came to produce the doctrine
of abstract ideas, it must be observed that it is a received opinion
that language has no other end but the communicating our ideas,
and that every significant name stands for an idea. This being
so, and it being withal certain that names which yet are not thought
altogether insignificant do not always mark out particular conceivable
ideas, it is straightway concluded that they stand for abstract
notions. That there are many names in use amongst speculative
men which do not always suggest to others determinate, particular
ideas, or in truth anything at all, is what nobody will deny.
And a little attention will discover that it is not necessary
(even in the strictest reasonings) significant names which stand
for ideas should, every time they are used, excite in the understanding
the ideas they are made to stand for- in reading and discoursing,
names being for the most part used as letters are in Algebra,
in which, though a particular quantity be marked by each letter,
yet to proceed right it is not requisite that in every step each
letter suggest to your thoughts that particular quantity it was
appointed to stand for. 20. Besides, the communicating of ideas
marked by words is not the chief and only end of language, as
is commonly supposed. There are other ends, as the raising of
some passion, the exciting to or deterring from an action, the
putting the mind in some particular disposition- to which the
former is in many cases barely subservient, and sometimes entirely
omitted, when these can be obtained without it, as I think does
not unfrequently happen in the familiar use of language. I entreat
the reader to reflect with himself, and see if it doth not often
happen, either in hearing or reading a discourse, that the passions
of fear, love, hatred, admiration, disdain, and the like, arise
immediately in his mind upon the perception of certain words,
without any ideas coming between. At first, indeed, the words
might have occasioned ideas that were fitting to produce those
emotions; but, if I mistake not, it will be found that, when language
is once grown familiar, the hearing of the sounds or sight of
the characters is oft immediately attended with those passions
which at first were wont to be produced by the intervention of
ideas that are now quite omitted. May we not, for example, be
affected with the promise of a good thing, though we have not
an idea of what it is? Or is not the being threatened with danger
sufficient to excite a dread, though we think not of any particular
evil likely to befal us, nor yet frame to ourselves an idea of
danger in abstract? If any one shall join ever so little reflexion
of his own to what has been said, I believe that it will evidently
appear to him that general names are often used in the propriety
of language without the speaker's designing them for marks of
ideas in his own, which he would have them raise in the mind of
the hearer. Even proper names themselves do not seem always spoken
with a design to bring into our view the ideas of those individuals
that are supposed to be marked by them. For example, when a schoolman
tells me "Aristotle hath said it," all I conceive he
means by it is to dispose me to embrace his opinion with the deference
and submission which custom has annexed to that name. And this
effect is often so instantly produced in the minds of those who
are accustomed to resign their judgment to authority of that philosopher,
as it is impossible any idea either of his person, writings, or
reputation should go before. Innumerable examples of this kind
may be given, but why should I insist on those things which every
one's experience will, I doubt not, plentifully suggest unto him?
21. We have, I think, shewn the impossibility of Abstract Ideas.
We have considered what has been said for them by their ablest
patrons; and endeavored to show they are of no use for those ends
to which they are thought necessary. And lastly, we have traced
them to the source from whence they flow, which appears evidently
to be language.- It cannot be denied that words are of excellent
use, in that by their means all that stock of knowledge which
has been purchased by the joint labours of inquisitive men in
all ages and nations may be drawn into the view and made the possession
of one single person. But at the same time it must be owned that
most parts of knowledge have been strangely perplexed and darkened
by the abuse of words, and general ways of speech wherein they
are delivered. Since therefore words are so apt to impose on the
understanding, whatever ideas I consider, I shall endeavour to
take them bare and naked into my view, keeping out of my thoughts
so far as I am able, those names which long and constant use hath
so strictly united with them; from which I may expect to derive
the following advantages: 22. First, I shall be sure to get clear
of all controversies purely verbal- the springing up of which
weeds in almost all the sciences has been a main hindrance to
the growth of true and sound knowledge. Secondly, this seems to
be a sure way to extricate myself out of that fine and subtle
net of abstract ideas which has so miserably perplexed and entangled
the minds of men; and that with this peculiar circumstance, that
by how much the finer and more curious was the wit of any man,
by so much the deeper was he likely to be ensnared and faster
held therein. Thirdly, so long as I confine my thoughts to my
own ideas divested of words, I do not see how I can easily be
mistaken. The objects I consider, I clearly and adequately know.
I cannot be deceived in thinking I have an idea which I have not.
It is not possible for me to imagine that any of my own ideas
are alike or unlike that are not truly so. To discern the agreements
or disagreements there are between my ideas, to see what ideas
are included in any compound idea and what not, there is nothing
more requisite than an attentive perception of what passes in
my own understanding. 23. But the attainment of all these advantages
doth presuppose an entire deliverance from the deception of words,
which I dare hardly promise myself; so difficult a thing it is
to dissolve an union so early begun, and confirmed by so long
a habit as that betwixt words and ideas. Which difficulty seems
to have been very much increased by the doctrine of abstraction.
For, so long as men thought abstract ideas were annexed to their
words, it doth not seem strange that they should use words for
ideas- it being found an impracticable thing to lay aside the
word, and retain the abstract idea in the mind, which in itself
was perfectly inconceivable. This seems to me the principal cause
why those men who have so emphatically recommended to others the
laying aside all use of words in their meditations, and contemplating
their bare ideas, have yet failed to perform it themselves. Of
late many have been very sensible of the absurd opinions and insignificant
disputes which grow out of the abuse of words. And, in order to
remedy these evils, they advise well, that we attend to the ideas
signified, and draw off our attention from the words which signify
them. But, how good soever this advice may be they have given
others, it is plain they could not have a due regard to it themselves,
so long as they thought the only immediate use of words was to
signify ideas, and that the immediate signification of every general
name was a determinate abstract idea. 24. But, these being known
to be mistakes, a man may with greater ease prevent his being
imposed on by words. He that knows he has no other than particular
ideas, will not puzzle himself in vain to find out and conceive
the abstract idea annexed to any name. And he that knows names
do not always stand for ideas will spare himself the labour of
looking for ideas where there are none to be had. It were, therefore,
to be wished that everyone would use his utmost endeavours to
obtain a clear view of the ideas he would consider, separating
from them all that dress and incumbrance of words which so much
contribute to blind the judgment and divide the attention. In
vain do we extend our view into the heavens and pry into the entrails
of the earth, in vain do we consult the writings of learned men
and trace the dark footsteps of antiquity- we need only draw the
curtain of words, to hold the fairest tree of knowledge, whose
fruit is excellent, and within the reach of our hand. 25. Unless
we take care to clear the First Principles of Knowledge from the
embarras and delusion of words, we may make infinite reasonings
upon them to no purpose; we may draw consequences from consequences,
and be never the wiser. The farther we go, we shall only lose
ourselves the more irrecoverably, and be the deeper entangled
in difficulties and mistakes. Whoever therefore designs to read
the following sheets, I entreat him to make my words the occasion
of his own thinking, and endeavour to attain the same train of
thoughts in reading that I had in writing them. By this means
it will be easy for him to discover the truth or falsity of what
I say. He will be out of all danger of being deceived by my words,
and I do not see how he can be led into an error by considering
his own naked, undisguised ideas. TREATISE A TREATISE CONCERNING
THE PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 1. It is evident to any one
who takes a survey of the objects of human knowledge, that they
are either ideas actually imprinted on the senses; or else such
as are perceived by attending to the passions and operations of
the mind; or lastly, ideas formed by help of memory and imagination-
either compounding, dividing, or barely representing those originally
perceived in the aforesaid ways. By sight I have the ideas of
light and colours, with their several degrees and variations.
By touch I perceive hard and soft, heat and cold, motion and resistance,
and of all these more and less either as to quantity or degree.
Smelling furnishes me with odours; the palate with tastes; and
hearing conveys sounds to the mind in all their variety of tone
and composition. And as several of these are observed to accompany
each other, they come to be marked by one name, and so to be reputed
as one thing. Thus, for example a certain colour, taste, smell,
figure and consistence having been observed to go together, are
accounted one distinct thing, signified by the name apple; other
collections of ideas constitute a stone, a tree, a book, and the
like sensible things- which as they are pleasing or disagreeable
excite the passions of love, hatred, joy, grief, and so forth.
2. But, besides all that endless variety of ideas or objects of
knowledge, there is likewise something which knows or perceives
them, and exercises divers operations, as willing, imagining,
remembering, about them. This perceiving, active being is what
I call mind, spirit, soul, or myself. By which words I do not
denote any one of my ideas, but a thing entirely distinct from
them, wherein, they exist, or, which is the same thing, whereby
they are perceived- for the existence of an idea consists in being
perceived. 3. That neither our thoughts, nor passions, nor ideas
formed by the imagination, exist without the mind, is what everybody
will allow. And it seems no less evident that the various sensations
or ideas imprinted on the sense, however blended or combined together
(that is, whatever objects they compose), cannot exist otherwise
than in a mind perceiving them.- I think an intuitive knowledge
may be obtained of this by any one that shall attend to what is
meant by the term exists, when applied to sensible things. The
table I write on I say exists, that is, I see and feel it; and
if I were out of my study I should say it existed- meaning thereby
that if I was in my study I might perceive it, or that some other
spirit actually does perceive it. There was an odour, that is,
it was smelt; there was a sound, that is, it was heard; a colour
or figure, and it was perceived by sight or touch. This is all
that I can understand by these and the like expressions. For as
to what is said of the absolute existence of unthinking things
without any relation to their being perceived, that seems perfectly
unintelligible. Their esse is percepi, nor is it possible they
should have any existence out of the minds or thinking things
which perceive them. 4. It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing
amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all
sensible objects, have an existence, natural or real, distinct
from their being perceived by the understanding. But, with how
great an assurance and acquiescence soever this principle may
be entertained in the world, yet whoever shall find in his heart
to call it in question may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve
a manifest contradiction. For, what are the fore-mentioned objects
but the things we perceive by sense? and what do we perceive besides
our own ideas or sensations? and is it not plainly repugnant that
any one of these, or any combination of them, should exist unperceived?
5. If we thoroughly examine this tenet it will, perhaps, be found
at bottom to depend on the doctrine of abstract ideas. For can
there be a nicer strain of abstraction than to distinguish the
existence of sensible objects from their being perceived, so as
to conceive them existing unperceived? Light and colours, heat
and cold, extension and figures- in a word the things we see and
feel- what are they but so many sensations, notions, ideas, or
impressions on the sense? and is it possible to separate, even
in thought, any of these from perception? For my part, I might
as easily divide a thing from itself. I may, indeed, divide in
my thoughts, or conceive apart from each other, those things which,
perhaps I never perceived by sense so divided. Thus, I imagine
the trunk of a human body without the limbs, or conceive the smell
of a rose without thinking on the rose itself. So far, I will
not deny, I can abstract- if that may properly be called abstraction
which extends only to the conceiving separately such objects as
it is possible may really exist or be actually perceived asunder.
But my conceiving or imagining power does not extend beyond the
possibility of real existence or perception. Hence, as it is impossible
for me to see or feel anything without an actual sensation of
that thing, so is it impossible for me to conceive in my thoughts
any sensible thing or object distinct from the sensation or perception
of it. 6. Some truths there are so near and obvious to the mind
that a man need only open his eyes to see them. Such I take this
important one to be, viz., that all the choir of heaven and furniture
of the earth, in a word all those bodies which compose the mighty
frame of the world, have not any subsistence without a mind, that
their being is to be perceived or known; that consequently so
long as they are not actually perceived by me, or do not exist
in my mind or that of any other created spirit, they must either
have no existence at all, or else subsist in the mind of some
Eternal Spirit- it being perfectly unintelligible, and involving
all the absurdity of abstraction, to attribute to any single part
of them an existence independent of a spirit. To be convinced
of which, the reader need only reflect, and try to separate in
his own thoughts the being of a sensible thing from its being
perceived. 7. From what has been said it follows there is not
any other Substance than Spirit, or that which perceives. But,
for the fuller proof of this point, let it be considered the sensible
qualities are colour, figure, motion, smell, taste, etc., i.e.
the ideas perceived by sense. Now, for an idea to exist in an
unperceiving thing is a manifest contradiction, for to have an
idea is all one as to perceive; that therefore wherein colour,
figure, and the like qualities exist must perceive them; hence
it is clear there can be no unthinking substance or substratum
of those ideas. 8. But, say you, though the ideas themselves do
not exist without the mind, yet there may be things like them,
whereof they are copies or resemblances, which things exist without
the mind in an unthinking substance. I answer, an idea can be
like nothing but an idea; a colour or figure can be like nothing
but another colour or figure. If we look but never so little into
our thoughts, we shall find it impossible for us to conceive a
likeness except only between our ideas. Again, I ask whether those
supposed originals or external things, of which our ideas are
the pictures or representations, be themselves perceivable or
no? If they are, then they are ideas and we have gained our point;
but if you say they are not, I appeal to any one whether it be
sense to assert a colour is like something which is invisible;
hard or soft, like something which is intangible; and so of the
rest. 9. Some there are who make a distinction betwixt primary
and secondary qualities. By the former they mean extension, figure,
motion, rest, solidity or impenetrability, and number; by the
latter they denote all other sensible qualities, as colours, sounds,
tastes, and so forth. The ideas we have of these they acknowledge
not to be the resemblances of anything existing without the mind,
or unperceived, but they will have our ideas of the primary qualities
to be patterns or images of things which exist without the mind,
in an unthinking substance which they call Matter. By Matter,
therefore, we are to understand an inert, senseless substance,
in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist. But
it is evident from what we have already shown, that extension,
figure, and motion are only ideas existing in the mind, and that
an idea can be like nothing but another idea, and that consequently
neither they nor their archetypes can exist in an unperceiving
substance. Hence, it is plain that that the very notion of what
is called Matter or corporeal substance, involves a contradiction
in it. 10. They who assert that figure, motion, and the rest of
the primary or original qualities do exist without the mind in
unthinking substances, do at the same time acknowledge that colours,
sounds, heat cold, and suchlike secondary qualities, do not- which
they tell us are sensations existing in the mind alone, that depend
on and are occasioned by the different size, texture, and motion
of the minute particles of matter. This they take for an undoubted
truth, which they can demonstrate beyond all exception. Now, if
it be certain that those original qualities are inseparably united
with the other sensible qualities, and not, even in thought, capable
of being abstracted from them, it plainly follows that they exist
only in the mind. But I desire any one to reflect and try whether
he can, by any abstraction of thought, conceive the extension
and motion of a body without all other sensible qualities. For
my own part, I see evidently that it is not in my power to frame
an idea of a body extended and moving, but I must withal give
it some colour or other sensible quality which is acknowledged
to exist only in the mind. In short, extension, figure, and motion,
abstracted from all other qualities, are inconceivable. Where
therefore the other sensible qualities are, there must these be
also, to wit, in the mind and nowhere else. 11. Again, great and
small, swift and slow, are allowed to exist nowhere without the
mind, being entirely relative, and changing as the frame or position
of the organs of sense varies. The extension therefore which exists
without the mind is neither great nor small, the motion neither
swift nor slow, that is, they are nothing at all. But, say you,
they are extension in general, and motion in general: thus we
see how much the tenet of extended movable substances existing
without the mind depends on the strange doctrine of abstract ideas.
And here I cannot but remark how nearly the vague and indeterminate
description of Matter or corporeal substance, which the modern
philosophers are run into by their own principles, resembles that
antiquated and so much ridiculed notion of materia prima, to be
met with in Aristotle and his followers. Without extension solidity
cannot be conceived; since therefore it has been shewn that extension
exists not in an unthinking substance, the same must also be true
of solidity. 12. That number is entirely the creature of the mind,
even though the other qualities be allowed to exist without, will
be evident to whoever considers that the same thing bears a different
denomination of number as the mind views it with different respects.
Thus, the same extension is one, or three, or thirty-six, according
as the mind considers it with reference to a yard, a foot, or
an inch. Number is so visibly relative, and dependent on men's
understanding, that it is strange to think how any one should
give it an absolute existence without the mind. We say one book,
one page, one line, etc.; all these are equally units, though
some contain several of the others. And in each instance, it is
plain, the unit relates to some particular combination of ideas
arbitrarily put together by the mind. 13. Unity I know some will
have to be a simple or uncompounded idea, accompanying all other
ideas into the mind. That I have any such idea answering the word
unity I do not find; and if I had, methinks I could not miss finding
it: on the contrary, it should be the most familiar to my understanding,
since it is said to accompany all other ideas, and to be perceived
by all the ways of sensation and reflexion. To say no more, it
is an abstract idea. 14. I shall farther add, that, after the
same manner as modern philosophers prove certain sensible qualities
to have no existence in Matter, or without the mind, the same
thing may be likewise proved of all other sensible qualities whatsoever.
Thus, for instance, it is said that heat and cold are affections
only of the mind, and not at all patterns of real beings, existing
in the corporeal substances which excite them, for that the same
body which appears cold to one hand seems warm to another. Now,
why may we not as well argue that figure and extension are not
patterns or resemblances of qualities existing in Matter, because
to the same eye at different stations, or eyes of a different
texture at the same station, they appear various, and cannot therefore
be the images of anything settled and determinate without the
mind? Again, it is proved that sweetness is not really in the
sapid thing, because the thing remaining unaltered the sweetness
is changed into bitter, as in case of a fever or otherwise vitiated
palate. Is it not as reasonable to say that motion is not without
the mind, since if the succession of ideas in the mind become
swifter, the motion, it is acknowledged, shall appear slower without
any alteration in any external object? 15. In short, let any one
consider those arguments which are thought manifestly to prove
that colours and taste exist only in the mind, and he shall find
they may with equal force be brought to prove the same thing of
extension, figure, and motion. Though it must be confessed this
method of arguing does not so much prove that there is no extension
or colour in an outward object, as that we do not know by sense
which is the true extension or colour of the object. But the arguments
foregoing plainly shew it to be impossible that any colour or
extension at all, or other sensible quality whatsoever, should
exist in an unthinking subject without the mind, or in truth,
that there should be any such thing as an outward object. 16.
But let us examine a little the received opinion.- It is said
extension is a mode or accident of Matter, and that Matter is
the substratum that supports it. Now I desire that you would explain
to me what is meant by Matter's supporting extension. Say you,
I have no idea of Matter and therefore cannot explain it. I answer,
though you have no positive, yet, if you have any meaning at all,
you must at least have a relative idea of Matter; though you know
not what it is, yet you must be supposed to know what relation
it bears to accidents, and what is meant by its supporting them.
It is evident "support" cannot here be taken in its
usual or literal sense- as when we say that pillars support a
building; in what sense therefore must it be taken? 17. If we
inquire into what the most accurate philosophers declare themselves
to mean by material substance, we shall find them acknowledge
they have no other meaning annexed to those sounds but the idea
of Being in general, together with the relative notion of its
supporting accidents. The general idea of Being appeareth to me
the most abstract and incomprehensible of all other; and as for
its supporting accidents, this, as we have just now observed,
cannot be understood in the common sense of those words; it must
therefore be taken in some other sense, but what that is they
do not explain. So that when I consider the two parts or branches
which make the signification of the words material substance,
I am convinced there is no distinct meaning annexed to them. But
why should we trouble ourselves any farther, in discussing this
material substratum or support of figure and motion, and other
sensible qualities? Does it not suppose they have an existence
without the mind? And is not this a direct repugnancy, and altogether
inconceivable? 18. But, though it were possible that solid, figured,
movable substances may exist without the mind, corresponding to
the ideas we have of bodies, yet how is it possible for us to
know this? Either we must know it by sense or by reason. As for
our senses, by them we have the knowledge only of our sensations,
ideas, or those things that are immediately perceived by sense,
call them what you will: but they do not inform us that things
exist without the mind, or unperceived, like to those which are
perceived. This the materialists themselves acknowledge. It remains
therefore that if we have any knowledge at all of external things,
it must be by reason, inferring their existence from what is immediately
perceived by sense. But what reason can induce us to believe the
existence of bodies without the mind, from what we perceive, since
the very patrons of Matter themselves do not pretend there is
any necessary connexion betwixt them and our ideas? I say it is
granted on all hands (and what happens in dreams, phrensies, and
the like, puts it beyond dispute) that it is possible we might
be affected with all the ideas we have now, though there were
no bodies existing without resembling them. Hence, it is evident
the supposition of external bodies is not necessary for the producing
our ideas; since it is granted they are produced sometimes, and
might possibly be produced always in the same order, we see them
in at present, without their concurrence. 19. But, though we might
possibly have all our sensations without them, yet perhaps it
may be thought easier to conceive and explain the manner of their
production, by supposing external bodies in their likeness rather
than otherwise; and so it might be at least probable there are
such things as bodies that excite their ideas in our minds. But
neither can this be said; for, though we give the materialists
their external bodies, they by their own confession are never
the nearer knowing how our ideas are produced; since they own
themselves unable to comprehend in what manner body can act upon
spirit, or how it is possible it should imprint any idea in the
mind. Hence it is evident the production of ideas or sensations
in our minds can be no reason why we should suppose Matter or
corporeal substances, since that is acknowledged to remain equally
inexplicable with or without this supposition. If therefore it
were possible for bodies to exist without the mind, yet to hold
they do so, must needs be a very precarious opinion; since it
is to suppose, without any reason at all, that God has created
innumerable beings that are entirely useless, and serve to no
manner of purpose. 20. In short, if there were external bodies,
it is impossible we should ever come to know it; and if there
were not, we might have the very same reasons to think there were
that we have now. Suppose- what no one can deny possible- an intelligence
without the help of external bodies, to be affected with the same
train of sensations or ideas that you are, imprinted in the same
order and with like vividness in his mind. I ask whether that
intelligence hath not all the reason to believe the existence
of corporeal substances, represented by his ideas, and exciting
them in his mind, that you can possibly have for believing the
same thing? Of this there can be no question- which one consideration
were enough to make any reasonable person suspect the strength
of whatever arguments be may think himself to have, for the existence
of bodies without the mind. 21. Were it necessary to add any farther
proof against the existence of Matter after what has been said,
I could instance several of those errors and difficulties (not
to mention impieties) which have sprung from that tenet. It has
occasioned numberless controversies and disputes in philosophy,
and not a few of far greater moment in religion. But I shall not
enter into the detail of them in this place, as well because I
think arguments a posteriori are unnecessary for confirming what
has been, if I mistake not, sufficiently demonstrated a priori,
as because I shall hereafter find occasion to speak somewhat of
them. 22. I am afraid I have given cause to think I am needlessly
prolix in handling this subject. For, to what purpose is it to
dilate on that which may be demonstrated with the utmost evidence
in a line or two, to any one that is capable of the least reflexion?
It is but looking into your own thoughts, and so trying whether
you can conceive it possible for a sound, or figure, or motion,
or colour to exist without the mind or unperceived. This easy
trial may perhaps make you see that what you contend for is a
downright contradiction. Insomuch that I am content to put the
whole upon this issue:- If you can but conceive it possible for
one extended movable substance, or, in general, for any one idea,
or anything like an idea, to exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving
it, I shall readily give up the cause. And, as for all that compages
of external bodies you contend for, I shall grant you its existence,
though you cannot either give me any reason why you believe it
exists, or assign any use to it when it is supposed to exist.
I say, the bare possibility of your opinions being true shall
pass for an argument that it is so. 23. But, say you, surely there
is nothing easier than for me to imagine trees, for instance,
in a park, or books existing in a closet, and nobody by to perceive
them. I answer, you may so, there is no difficulty in it; but
what is all this, I beseech you, more than framing in your mind
certain ideas which you call books and trees, and the same time
omitting to frame the idea of any one that may perceive them?
But do not you yourself perceive or think of them all the while?
This therefore is nothing to the purpose; it only shews you have
the power of imagining or forming ideas in your mind: but it does
not shew that you can conceive it possible the objects of your
thought may exist without the mind. To make out this, it is necessary
that you conceive them existing unconceived or unthought of, which
is a manifest repugnancy. When we do our utmost to conceive the
existence of external bodies, we are all the while only contemplating
our own ideas. But the mind taking no notice of itself, is deluded
to think it can and does conceive bodies existing unthought of
or without the mind, though at the same time they are apprehended
by or exist in itself. A little attention will discover to any
one the truth and evidence of what is here said, and make it unnecessary
to insist on any other proofs against the existence of material
substance. 24. It is very obvious, upon the least inquiry into
our thoughts, to know whether it is possible for us to understand
what is meant by the absolute existence of sensible objects in
themselves, or without the mind. To me it is evident those words
mark out either a direct contradiction, or else nothing at all.
And to convince others of this, I know no readier or fairer way
than to entreat they would calmly attend to their own thoughts;
and if by this attention the emptiness or repugnancy of those
expressions does appear, surely nothing more is requisite for
the conviction. It is on this therefore that I insist, to wit,
that the absolute existence of unthinking things are words without
a meaning, or which include a contradiction. This is what I repeat
and inculcate, and earnestly recommend to the attentive thoughts
of the reader. 25. All our ideas, sensations, notions, or the
things which we perceive, by whatsoever names they may be distinguished,
are visibly inactive- there is nothing of power or agency included
in them. So that one idea or object of thought cannot produce
or make any alteration in another. To be satisfied of the truth
of this, there is nothing else requisite but a bare observation
of our ideas. For, since they and every part of them exist only
in the mind, it follows that there is nothing in them but what
is perceived: but whoever shall attend to his ideas, whether of
sense or reflexion, will not perceive in them any power or activity;
there is, therefore, no such thing contained in them. A little
attention will discover to us that the very being of an idea implies
passiveness and inertness in it, insomuch that it is impossible
for an idea to do anything, or, strictly speaking, to be the cause
of anything: neither can it be the resemblance or pattern of any
active being, as is evident from sect. 8. Whence it plainly follows
that extension, figure, and motion cannot be the cause of our
sensations. To say, therefore, that these are the effects of powers
resulting from the configuration, number, motion, and size of
corpuscles, must certainly be false. 26. We perceive a continual
succession of ideas, some are anew excited, others are changed
or totally disappear. There is therefore some cause of these ideas,
whereon they depend, and which produces and changes them. That
this cause cannot be any quality or idea or combination of ideas,
is clear from the preceding section. I must therefore be a substance;
but it has been shewn that there is no corporeal or material substance:
it remains therefore that the cause of ideas is an incorporeal
active substance or Spirit. 27. A spirit is one simple, undivided,
active being- as it perceives ideas it is called the understanding,
and as it produces or otherwise operates about them it is called
the will. Hence there can be no idea formed of a soul or spirit;
for all ideas whatever, being passive and inert (vide sect. 25),
they cannot represent unto us, by way of image or likeness, that
which acts. A little attention will make it plain to any one,
that to have an idea which shall be like that active principle
of motion and change of ideas is absolutely impossible. Such is
the nature of spirit, or that which acts, that it cannot be of
itself perceived, but only by the effects which it produceth.
If any man shall doubt of the truth of what is here delivered,
let him but reflect and try if he can frame the idea of any power
or active being, and whether he has ideas of two principal powers,
marked by the names will and understanding, distinct from each
other as well as from a third idea of Substance or Being in general,
with a relative notion of its supporting or being the subject
of the aforesaid powers- which is signified by the name soul or
spirit. This is what some hold; but, so far as I can see, the
words will, soul, spirit, do not stand for different ideas, or,
in truth, for any idea at all, but for something which is very
different from ideas, and which, being an agent, cannot be like
unto, or represented by, any idea whatsoever. Though it must be
owned at the same time that we have some notion of soul, spirit,
and the operations of the mind: such as willing, loving, hating-
inasmuch as we know or understand the meaning of these words.
28. I find I can excite ideas in my mind at pleasure, and vary
and shift the scene as oft as I think fit. It is no more than
willing, and straightway this or that idea arises in my fancy;
and by the same power it is obliterated and makes way for another.
This making and unmaking of ideas doth very properly denominate
the mind active. Thus much is certain and grounded on experience;
but when we think of unthinking agents or of exciting ideas exclusive
of volition, we only amuse ourselves with words. 29. But, whatever
power I may have over my own thoughts, I find the ideas actually
perceived by Sense have not a like dependence on my will. When
in broad daylight I open my eyes, it is not in my power to choose
whether I shall see or no, or to determine what particular objects
shall present themselves to my view; and so likewise as to the
hearing and other senses; the ideas imprinted on them are not
creatures of my will. There is therefore some other Will or Spirit
that produces them. 30. The ideas of Sense are more strong, lively,
and distinct than those of the imagination; they have likewise
a steadiness, order, and coherence, and are not excited at random,
as those which are the effects of human wills often are, but in
a regular train or series, the admirable connexion whereof sufficiently
testifies the wisdom and benevolence of its Author. Now the set
rules or established methods wherein the Mind we depend on excites
in us the ideas of sense, are called the laws of nature; and these
we learn by experience, which teaches us that such and such ideas
are attended with such and such other ideas, in the ordinary course
of things. 31. This gives us a sort of foresight which enables
us to regulate our actions for the benefit of life. And without
this we should be eternally at a loss; we could not know how to
act anything that might procure us the least pleasure, or remove
the least pain of sense. That food nourishes, sleep refreshes,
and fire warms us; that to sow in the seed-time is the way to
reap in the harvest; and in general that to obtain such or such
ends, such or such means are conducive- all this we know, not
by discovering any necessary connexion between our ideas, but
only by the observation of the settled laws of nature, without
which we should be all in uncertainty and confusion, and a grown
man no more know how to manage himself in the affairs of life
than an infant just born. 32. And yet this consistent uniform
working, which so evidently displays the goodness and wisdom of
that Governing Spirit whose Will constitutes the laws of nature,
is so far from leading our thoughts to Him, that it rather sends
them wandering after second causes. For, when we perceive certain
ideas of Sense constantly followed by other ideas and we know
this is not of our own doing, we forthwith attribute power and
agency to the ideas themselves, and make one the cause of another,
than which nothing can be more absurd and unintelligible. Thus,
for example, having observed that when we perceive by sight a
certain round luminous figure we at the same time perceive by
touch the idea or sensation called heat, we do from thence conclude
the sun to be the cause of heat. And in like manner perceiving
the motion and collision of bodies to be attended with sound,
we are inclined to think the latter the effect of the former.
33. The ideas imprinted on the Senses by the Author of nature
are called real things; and those excited in the imagination being
less regular, vivid, and constant, are more properly termed ideas,
or images of things, which they copy and represent. But then our
sensations, be they never so vivid and distinct, are nevertheless
ideas, that is, they exist in the mind, or are perceived by it,
as truly as the ideas of its own framing. The ideas of Sense are
allowed to have more reality in them, that is, to be more strong,
orderly, and coherent than the creatures of the mind; but this
is no argument that they exist without the mind. They are also
less dependent on the spirit, or thinking substance which perceives
them, in that they are excited by the will of another and more
powerful spirit; yet still they are ideas, and certainly no idea,
whether faint or strong, can exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving
it. 34. Before we proceed any farther it is necessary we spend
some time in answering objections which may probably be made against
the principles we have hitherto laid down. In doing of which,
if I seem too prolix to those of quick apprehensions, I hope it
may be pardoned, since all men do not equally apprehend things
of this nature, and I am willing to be understood by every one.
First, then, it will be objected that by the foregoing principles
all that is real and substantial in nature is banished out of
the world, and instead thereof a chimerical scheme of ideas takes
place. All things that exist, exist only in the mind, that is,
they are purely notional. What therefore becomes of the sun, moon
and stars? What must we think of houses, rivers, mountains, trees,
stones; nay, even of our own bodies? Are all these but so many
chimeras and illusions on the fancy? To all which, and whatever
else of the same sort may be objected, I answer, that by the principles
premised we are not deprived of any one thing in nature. Whatever
we see, feel, hear, or anywise conceive or understand remains
as secure as ever, and is as real as ever. There is a rerum natura,
and the distinction between realities and chimeras retains its
full force. This is evident from sect. 29, 30, and 33, where we
have shewn what is meant by real things in opposition to chimeras
or ideas of our own framing; but then they both equally exist
in the mind, and in that sense they are alike ideas. 35. I do
not argue against the existence of any one thing that we can apprehend
either by sense or reflexion. That the things I see with my eyes
and touch with my hands do exist, really exist, I make not the
least question. The only thing whose existence we deny is that
which philosophers call Matter or corporeal substance. And in
doing of this there is no damage done to the rest of mankind,
who, I dare say, will never miss it. The Atheist indeed will want
the colour of an empty name to support his impiety; and the Philosophers
may possibly find they have lost a great handle for trifling and
disputation. 36. If any man thinks this detracts from the existence
or reality of things, he is very far from understanding what hath
been premised in the plainest terms I could think of. Take here
an abstract of what has been said:- There are spiritual substances,
minds, or human souls, which will or excite ideas in themselves
at pleasure; but these are faint, weak, and unsteady in respect
of others they perceive by sense- which, being impressed upon
them according to certain rules or laws of nature, speak themselves
the effects of a mind more powerful and wise than human spirits.
These latter are said to have more reality in them than the former:-
by which is meant that they are more affecting, orderly, and distinct,
and that they are not fictions of the mind perceiving them. And
in this sense the sun that I see by day is the real sun, and that
which I imagine by night is the idea of the former. In the sense
here given of reality it is evident that every vegetable, star,
mineral, and in general each part of the mundane system, is as
much a real being by our principles as by any other. Whether others
mean anything by the term reality different from what I do, I
entreat them to look into their own thoughts and see. 37. I will
be urged that thus much at least is true, to wit, that we take
away all corporeal substances. To this my answer is, that if the
word substance be taken in the vulgar sense- for a combination
of sensible qualities, such as extension, solidity, weight, and
the like- this we cannot be accused of taking away: but if it
be taken in a philosophic sense- for the support of accidents
or qualities without the mind- then indeed I acknowledge that
we take it away, if one may be said to take away that which never
had any existence, not even in the imagination. 38. But after
all, say you, it sounds very harsh to say we eat and drink ideas,
and are clothed with ideas. I acknowledge it does so- the word
idea not being used in common discourse to signify the several
combinations of sensible qualities which are called things; and
it is certain that any expression which varies from the familiar
use of language will seem harsh and ridiculous. But this doth
not concern the truth of the proposition, which in other words
is no more than to say, we are fed and clothed with those things
which we perceive immediately by our senses. The hardness or softness,
the colour, taste, warmth, figure, or suchlike qualities, which
combined together constitute the several sorts of victuals and
apparel, have been shewn to exist only in the mind that perceives
them; and this is all that is meant by calling them ideas; which
word if it was as ordinarily used as thing, would sound no harsher
nor more ridiculous than it. I am not for disputing about the
propriety, but the truth of the expression. If therefore you agree
with me that we eat and drink and are clad with the immediate
objects of sense, which cannot exist unperceived or without the
mind, I shall readily grant it is more proper or conformable to
custom that they should be called things rather than ideas. 39.
If it be demanded why I make use of the word idea, and do not
rather in compliance with custom call them things; I answer, I
do it for two reasons:- first, because the term thing in contra-distinction
to idea, is generally supposed to denote somewhat existing without
the mind; secondly, because thing hath a more comprehensive signification
than idea, including spirit or thinking things as well as ideas.
Since therefore the objects of sense exist only in the mind, and
are withal thoughtless and inactive, I chose to mark them by the
word idea, which implies those properties. 40. But, say what we
can, some one perhaps may be apt to reply, he will still believe
his senses, and never suffer any arguments, how plausible soever,
to prevail over the certainty of them. Be it so; assert the evidence
of sense as high as you please, we are willing to do the same.
That what I see, hear, and feel doth exist, that is to say, is
perceived by me, I no more doubt than I do of my own being. But
I do not see how the testimony of sense can be alleged as a proof
for the existence of anything which is not perceived by sense.
We are not for having any man turn sceptic and disbelieve his
senses; on the contrary, we give them all the stress and assurance
imaginable; nor are there any principles more opposite to Scepticism
than those we have laid down, as shall be hereafter clearly shewn.
41. Secondly, it will be objected that there is a great difference
betwixt real fire for instance, and the idea of fire, betwixt
dreaming or imagining oneself burnt, and actually being so: if
you suspect it to be only the idea of fire which you see, do but
put your hand into it and you will be convinced with a witness.
This and the like may be urged in opposition to our tenets. To
all which the answer is evident from what hath been already said;
and I shall only add in this place, that if real fire be very
different from the idea of fire, so also is the real pain that
it occasions very different from the idea of the same pain, and
yet nobody will pretend that real pain either is, or can possibly
be, in an unperceiving thing, or without the mind, any more than
its idea. 42. Thirdly, it will be objected that we see things
actually without or at distance from us, and which consequently
do not exist in the mind; it being absurd that those things which
are seen at the distance of several miles should be as near to
us as our own thoughts. In answer to this, I desire it may be
considered that in a dream we do oft perceive things as existing
at a great distance off, and yet for all that, those things are
acknowledged to have their existence only in the mind. 43. But,
for the fuller clearing of this point, it may be worth while to
consider how it is that we perceive distance and things placed
at a distance by sight. For, that we should in truth see external
space, and bodies actually existing in it, some nearer, others
farther off, seems to carry with it some opposition to what hath
been said of their existing nowhere without the mind. The consideration
of this difficulty it was that gave birth to my "Essay towards
a New Theory of Vision," which was published not long since,
wherein it is shewn that distance or outness is neither immediately
of itself perceived by sight, nor yet apprehended or judged of
by lines and angles, or anything that hath a necessary connexion
with it; but that it is only suggested to our thoughts by certain
visible ideas and sensations attending vision, which in their
own nature have no manner of similitude or relation either with
distance or things placed at a distance; but, by a connexion taught
us by experience, they come to signify and suggest them to us,
after the same manner that words of any language suggest the ideas
they are made to stand for; insomuch that a man born blind and
afterwards made to see, would not, at first sight, think the things
he saw to be without his mind, or at any distance from him. See
sect. 41 of the fore-mentioned treatise. 44. The ideas of sight
and touch make two species entirely distinct and heterogeneous.
The former are marks and prognostics of the latter. That the proper
objects of sight neither exist without mind, nor are the images
of external things, was shewn even in that treatise. Though throughout
the same the contrary be supposed true of tangible objects- not
that to suppose that vulgar error was necessary for establishing
the notion therein laid down, but because it was beside my purpose
to examine and refute it in a discourse concerning Vision. So
that in strict truth the ideas of sight, when we apprehend by
them distance and things placed at a distance, do not suggest
or mark out to us things actually existing at a distance, but
only admonish us what ideas of touch will be imprinted in our
minds at such and such distances of time, and in consequence of
such or such actions. It is, I say, evident from what has been
said in the foregoing parts of this Treatise, and in sect. 147
and elsewhere of the Essay concerning Vision, that visible ideas
are the Language whereby the Governing Spirit on whom we depend
informs us what tangible ideas he is about to imprint upon us,
in case we excite this or that motion in our own bodies. But for
a fuller information in this point I refer to the Essay itself.
45. Fourthly, it will be objected that from the foregoing principles
it follows things are every moment annihilated and created anew.
The objects of sense exist only when they are perceived; the trees
therefore are in the garden, or the chairs in the parlour, no
longer than while there is somebody by to perceive them. Upon
shutting my eyes all the furniture in the room is reduced to nothing,
and barely upon opening them it is again created. In answer to
all which, I refer the reader to what has been said in sect. 3,
4, &c., and desire he will consider whether he means anything
by the actual existence of an idea distinct from its being perceived.
For my part, after the nicest inquiry I could make, I am not able
to discover that anything else is meant by those words; and I
once more entreat the reader to sound his own thoughts, and not
suffer himself to be imposed on by words. If he can conceive it
possible either for his ideas or their archetypes to exist without
being perceived, then I give up the cause; but if he cannot, he
will acknowledge it is unreasonable for him to stand up in defence
of he knows not what, and pretend to charge on me as an absurdity
the not assenting to those propositions which at bottom have no
meaning in them. 46. It will not be amiss to observe how far the
received principles of philosophy are themselves chargeable with
those pretended absurdities. It is thought strangely absurd that
upon closing my eyelids all the visible objects around me should
be reduced to nothing; and yet is not this what philosophers commonly
acknowledge, when they agree on all hands that light and colours,
which alone are the proper and immediate objects of sight, are
mere sensations that exist no longer than they are perceived?
Again, it may to some perhaps seem very incredible that things
should be every moment creating, yet this very notion is commonly
taught in the schools. For the Schoolmen, though they acknowledge
the existence of Matter, and that the whole mundane fabric is
framed out of it, are nevertheless of opinion that it cannot subsist
without the divine conservation, which by them is expounded to
be a continual creation. 47. Farther, a little thought will discover
to us that though we allow the existence of Matter or corporeal
substance, yet it will unavoidably follow, from the principles
which are now generally admitted, that the particular bodies,
of what kind soever, do none of them exist whilst they are not
perceived. For, it is evident from sect. II and the following
sections, that the Matter philosophers contend for is an incomprehensible
somewhat, which hath none of those particular qualities whereby
the bodies falling under our senses are distinguished one from
another. But, to make this more plain, it must be remarked that
the infinite divisibility of Matter is now universally allowed,
at least by the most approved and considerable philosophers, who
on the received principles demonstrate it beyond all exception.
Hence, it follows there is an infinite number of parts in each
particle of Matter which are not perceived by sense. The reason
therefore that any particular body seems to be of a finite magnitude,
or exhibits only a finite number of parts to sense, is, not because
it contains no more, since in itself it contains an infinite number
of parts, but because the sense is not acute enough to discern
them. In proportion therefore as the sense is rendered more acute,
it perceives a greater number of parts in the object, that is,
the object appears greater, and its figure varies, those parts
in its extremities which were before unperceivable appearing now
to bound it in very different lines and angles from those perceived
by an obtuser sense. And at length, after various changes of size
and shape, when the sense becomes infinitely acute the body shall
seem infinite. During all which there is no alteration in the
body, but only in the sense. Each body therefore, considered in
itself, is infinitely extended, and consequently void of all shape
or figure. From which it follows that, though we should grant
the existence of Matter to be never so certain, yet it is withal
as certain, the materialists themselves are by their own principles
forced to acknowledge, that neither the particular bodies perceived
by sense, nor anything like them, exists without the mind. Matter,
I say, and each particle thereof, is according to them infinite
and shapeless, and it is the mind that frames all that variety
of bodies which compose the visible world, any one whereof does
not exist longer than it is perceived. 48. If we consider it,
the objection proposed in sect. 45 will not be found reasonably
charged on the principles we have premised, so as in truth to
make any objection at all against our notions. For, though we
hold indeed the objects of sense to be nothing else but ideas
which cannot exist unperceived; yet we may not hence conclude
they have no existence except only while they are perceived by
us, since there may be some other spirit that perceives them though
we do not. Wherever bodies are said to have no existence without
the mind, I would not be understood to mean this or that particular
mind, but all minds whatsoever. It does not therefore follow from
the foregoing principles that bodies are annihilated and created
every moment, or exist not at all during the intervals between
our perception of them. 49. Fifthly, it may perhaps be objected
that if extension and figure exist only in the mind, it follows
that the mind is extended and figured; since extension is a mode
or attribute which (to speak with the schools) is predicated of
the subject in which it exists. I answer, those qualities are
in the mind only as they are perceived by it- that is, not by
way of mode or attribute, but only by way of idea; and it no more
follows the soul or mind is extended, because extension exists
in it alone, than it does that it is red or blue, because those
colours are on all hands acknowledged to exist in it, and nowhere
else. As to what philosophers say of subject and mode, that seems
very groundless and unintelligible. For instance, in this proposition
"a die is hard, extended, and square," they will have
it that the word die denotes a subject or substance, distinct
from the hardness, extension, and figure which are predicated
of it, and in which they exist. This I cannot comprehend: to me
a die seems to be nothing distinct from those things which are
termed its modes or accidents. And, to say a die is hard, extended,
and square is not to attribute those qualities to a subject distinct
from and supporting them, but only an explication of the meaning
of the word die. 50. Sixthly, you will say there have been a great
many things explained by matter and motion; take away these and
you destroy the whole corpuscular philosophy, and undermine those
mechanical principles which have been applied with so much success
to account for the phenomena. In short, whatever advances have
been made, either by ancient or modern philosophers, in the study
of nature do all proceed on the supposition that corporeal substance
or Matter doth really exist. To this I answer that there is not
any one phenomenon explained on that supposition which may not
as well be explained without it, as might easily be made appear
by an induction of particulars. To explain the phenomena, is all
one as to shew why, upon such and such occasions, we are affected
with such and such ideas. But how Matter should operate on a Spirit,
or produce any idea in it, is what no philosopher will pretend
to explain; it is therefore evident there can be no use of Matter
in natural philosophy. Besides, they who attempt to account for
things do it not by corporeal substance, but by figure, motion,
and other qualities, which are in truth no more than mere ideas,
and, therefore, cannot be the cause of anything, as hath been
already shewn. See sect. 25. 51. Seventhly, it will upon this
be demanded whether it does not seem absurd to take away natural
causes, and ascribe everything to the immediate operation of Spirits?
We must no longer say upon these principles that fire heats, or
water cools, but that a Spirit heats, and so forth. Would not
a man be deservedly laughed at, who should talk after this manner?
I answer, he would so; in such things we ought to "think
with the learned, and speak with the vulgar." They who to
demonstration are convinced of the truth of the Copernican system
do nevertheless say "the sun rises," "the sun sets,"
or "comes to the meridian"; and if they affected a contrary
style in common talk it would without doubt appear very ridiculous.
A little reflexion on what is here said will make it manifest
that the common use of language would receive no manner of alteration
or disturbance from the admission of our tenets. 52. In the ordinary
affairs of life, any phrases may be retained, so long as they
excite in us proper sentiments, or dispositions to act in such
a manner as is necessary for our well-being, how false soever
they may be if taken in a strict and speculative sense. Nay, this
is unavoidable, since, propriety being regulated by custom, language
is suited to the received opinions, which are not always the truest.
Hence it is impossible, even in the most rigid, philosophic reasonings,
so far to alter the bent and genius of the tongue we speak, as
never to give a handle for cavillers to pretend difficulties and
inconsistencies. But, a fair and ingenuous reader will collect
the sense from the scope and tenor and connexion of a discourse,
making allowances for those inaccurate modes of speech which use
has made inevitable. 53. As to the opinion that there are no Corporeal
Causes, this has been heretofore maintained by some of the Schoolmen,
as it is of late by others among the modern philosophers, who
though they allow Matter to exist, yet will have God alone to
be the immediate efficient cause of all things. These men saw
that amongst all the objects of sense there was none which had
any power or activity included in it; and that by consequence
this was likewise true of whatever bodies they supposed to exist
without the mind, like unto the immediate objects of sense. But
then, that they should suppose an innumerable multitude of created
beings, which they acknowledge are not capable of producing any
one effect in nature, and which therefore are made to no manner
of purpose, since God might have done everything as well without
them: this I say, though we should allow it possible, must yet
be a very unaccountable and extravagant supposition. 54. In the
eighth place, the universal concurrent assent of mankind may be
thought by some an invincible argument in behalf of Matter, or
the existence of external things. Must we suppose the whole world
to be mistaken? And if so, what cause can be assigned of so widespread
and predominant an error? I answer, first, that, upon a narrow
inquiry, it will not perhaps be found so many as is imagined do
really believe the existence of Matter or things without the mind.
Strictly speaking, to believe that which involves a contradiction,
or has no meaning in it, is impossible; and whether the foregoing
expressions are not of that sort, I refer it to the impartial
examination of the reader. In one sense, indeed, men may be said
to believe that Matter exists, that is, they act as if the immediate
cause of their sensations, which affects them every moment, and
is so nearly present to them, were some senseless unthinking being.
But, that they should clearly apprehend any meaning marked by
those words, and form thereof a settled speculative opinion, is
what I am not able to conceive. This is not the only instance
wherein men impose upon themselves, by imagining they believe
those propositions which they have often heard, though at bottom
they have no meaning in them. 55. But secondly, though we should
grant a notion to be never so universally and steadfastly adhered
to, yet this is weak argument of its truth to whoever considers
what a vast number of prejudices and false opinions are everywhere
embraced with the utmost tenaciousness, by the unreflecting (which
are the far greater) part of mankind. There was a time when the
antipodes and motion of the earth were looked upon as monstrous
absurdities even by men of learning: and if it be considered what
a small proportion they bear to the rest of mankind, we shall
find that at this day those notions have gained but a very inconsiderable
footing in the world. 56. But it is demanded that we assign a
cause of this prejudice, and account for its obtaining in the
world. To this I answer, that men knowing they perceived several
ideas, whereof they themselves were not the authors- as not being
excited from within nor depending on the operation of their wills-
this made them maintain those ideas, or objects of perception
had an existence independent of and without the mind, without
ever dreaming that a contradiction was involved in those words.
But, philosophers having plainly seen that the immediate objects
of perception do not exist without the mind, they in some degree
corrected the mistake of the vulgar; but at the same time run
into another which seems no less absurd, to wit, that there are
certain objects really existing without the mind, or having a
subsistence distinct from being perceived, of which our ideas
are only images or resemblances, imprinted by those objects on
the mind. And this notion of the philosophers owes its origin
to the same cause with the former, namely, their being conscious
that they were not the authors of their own sensations, which
they evidently knew were imprinted from without, and which therefore
must have some cause distinct from the minds on which they are
imprinted. 57. But why they should suppose the ideas of sense
to be excited in us by things in their likeness, and not rather
have recourse to Spirit which alone can act, may be accounted
for, first, because they were not aware of the repugnancy there
is, as well in supposing things like unto our ideas existing without,
as in attributing to them power or activity. Secondly, because
the Supreme Spirit which excites those ideas in our minds, is
not marked out and limited to our view by any particular finite
collection of sensible ideas, as human agents are by their size,
complexion, limbs, and motions. And thirdly, because His operations
are regular and uniform. Whenever the course of nature is interrupted
by a miracle, men are ready to own the presence of a superior
agent. But, when we see things go on in the ordinary course they
do not excite in us any reflexion; their order and concatenation,
though it be an argument of the greatest wisdom, power, and goodness
in their creator, is yet so constant and familiar to us that we
do not think them the immediate effects of a Free Spirit; especially
since inconsistency and mutability in acting, though it be an
imperfection, is looked on as a mark of freedom. 58. Tenthly,
it will be objected that the notions we advance are inconsistent
with several sound truths in philosophy and mathematics. For example,
the motion of the earth is now universally admitted by astronomers
as a truth grounded on the clearest and most convincing reasons.
But, on the foregoing principles, there can be no such thing.
For, motion being only an idea, it follows that if it be not perceived
it exists not; but the motion of the earth is not perceived by
sense. I answer, that tenet, if rightly understood, will be found
to agree with the principles we have premised; for, the question
whether the earth moves or no amounts in reality to no more than
this, to wit, whether we have reason to conclude, from what has
been observed by astronomers, that if we were placed in such and
such circumstances, and such or such a position and distance both
from the earth and sun, we should perceive the former to move
among the choir of the planets, and appearing in all respects
like one of them; and this, by the established rules of nature
which we have no reason to mistrust, is reasonably collected from
the phenomena. 59. We may, from the experience we have had of
the train and succession of ideas in our minds, often make, I
will not say uncertain conjectures, but sure and well-grounded
predictions concerning the ideas we shall be affected with pursuant
to a great train of actions, and be enabled to pass a right judgment
of what would have appeared to us, in case we were placed in circumstances
very different from those we are in at present. Herein consists
the knowledge of nature, which may preserve its use and certainty
very consistently with what hath been said. It will be easy to
apply this to whatever objections of the like sort may be drawn
from the magnitude of the stars, or any other discoveries in astronomy
or nature. 60. In the eleventh place, it will be demanded to what
purpose serves that curious organization of plants, and the animal
mechanism in the parts of animals; might not vegetables grow,
and shoot forth leaves of blossoms, and animals perform all their
motions as well without as with all that variety of internal parts
so elegantly contrived and put together; which, being ideas, have
nothing powerful or operative in them, nor have any necessary
connexion with the effects ascribed to them? If it be a Spirit
that immediately produces every effect by a fiat or act of his
will, we must think all that is fine and artificial in the works,
whether of man or nature, to be made in vain. By this doctrine,
though an artist hath made the spring and wheels, and every movement
of a watch, and adjusted them in such a manner as he knew would
produce the motions he designed, yet he must think all this done
to no purpose, and that it is an Intelligence which directs the
index, and points to the hour of the day. If so, why may not the
Intelligence do it, without his being at the pains of making the
movements and putting them together? Why does not an empty case
serve as well as another? And how comes it to pass that whenever
there is any fault in the going of a watch, there is some corresponding
disorder to be found in the movements, which being mended by a
skilful hand all is right again? The like may be said of all the
clockwork of nature, great part whereof is so wonderfully fine
and subtle as scarce to be discerned by the best microscope. In
short, it will be asked, how, upon our principles, any tolerable
account can be given, or any final cause assigned of an innumerable
multitude of bodies and machines, framed with the most exquisite
art, which in the common philosophy have very apposite uses assigned
them, and serve to explain abundance of phenomena? 61. To all
which I answer, first, that though there were some difficulties
relating to the administration of Providence, and the uses by
it assigned to the several parts of nature, which I could not
solve by the foregoing principles, yet this objection could be
of small weight against the truth and certainty of those things
which may be proved a priori, with the utmost evidence and rigor
of demonstration. Secondly, but neither are the received principles
free from the like difficulties; for, it may still be demanded
to what end God should take those roundabout methods of effecting
things by instruments and machines, which no one can deny might
have been effected by the mere command of His will without all
that apparatus; nay, if we narrowly consider it, we shall find
the objection may be retorted with greater force on those who
hold the existence of those machines without of mind; for it has
been made evident that solidity, bulk, figure, motion, and the
like have no activity or efficacy in them, so as to be capable
of producing any one effect in nature. See sect. 25. Whoever therefore
supposes them to exist (allowing the supposition possible) when
they are not perceived does it manifestly to no purpose; since
the only use that is assigned to them, as they exist unperceived,
is that they produce those perceivable effects which in truth
cannot be ascribed to anything but Spirit. 62. But, to come nigher
the difficulty, it must be observed that though the fabrication
of all those parts and organs be not absolutely necessary to the
producing any effect, yet it is necessary to the producing of
things in a constant regular way according to the laws of nature.
There are certain general laws that run through the whole chain
of natural effects; these are learned by the observation and study
of nature, and are by men applied as well to the framing artificial
things for the use and ornament of life as to the explaining various
phenomena- which explication consists only in shewing the conformity
any particular phenomenon hath to the general laws of nature,
or, which is the same thing, in discovering the uniformity there
is in the production of natural effects; as will be evident to
whoever shall attend to the several instances wherein philosophers
pretend to account for appearances. That there is a great and
conspicuous use in these regular constant methods of working observed
by the Supreme Agent hath been shewn in sect. 31. And it is no
less visible that a particular size, figure, motion, and disposition
of parts are necessary, though not absolutely to the producing
any effect, yet to the producing it according to the standing
mechanical laws of nature. Thus, for instance, it cannot be denied
that God, or the Intelligence that sustains and rules the ordinary
course of things, might if He were minded to produce a miracle,
cause all the motions on the dial-plate of a watch, though nobody
had ever made the movements and put them in it: but yet, if He
will act agreeably to the rules of mechanism, by Him for wise
ends established and maintained in the creation, it is necessary
that those actions of the watchmaker, whereby he makes the movements
and rightly adjusts them, precede the production of the aforesaid
motions; as also that any disorder in them be attended with the
perception of some corresponding disorder in the movements, which
being once corrected all is right again. 63. It may indeed on
some occasions be necessary that the Author of nature display
His overruling power in producing some appearance out of the ordinary
series of things. Such exceptions from the general rules of nature
are proper to surprise and awe men into an acknowledgement of
the Divine Being; but then they are to be used but seldom, otherwise
there is a plain reason why they should fail of that effect. Besides,
God seems to choose the convincing our reason of His attributes
by the works of nature, which discover so much harmony and contrivance
in their make, and are such plain indications of wisdom and beneficence
in their Author, rather than to astonish us into a belief of His
Being by anomalous and surprising events. 64. To set this matter
in a yet clearer light, I shall observe that what has been objected
in sect. 60 amounts in reality to no more than this:- ideas are
not anyhow and at random produced, there being a certain order
and connexion between them, like to that of cause and effect;
there are also several combinations of them made in a very regular
and artificial manner, which seem like so many instruments in
the hand of nature that, being hid as it were behind the scenes,
have a secret operation in producing those appearances which are
seen on the theatre of the world, being themselves discernible
only to the curious eye of the philosopher. But, since one idea
cannot be the cause of another, to what purpose is that connexion?
And, since those instruments, being barely inefficacious perceptions
in the mind, are not subservient to the production of natural
effects, it is demanded why they are made; or, in other words,
what reason can be assigned why God should make us, upon a close
inspection into His works, behold so great variety of ideas so
artfully laid together, and so much according to rule; it not
being credible that He would be at the expense (if one may so
speak) of all that art and regularity to no purpose. 65. To all
which my answer is, first, that the connexion of ideas does not
imply the relation of cause and effect, but only of a mark or
sign with the thing signified. The fire which I see is not the
cause of the pain I suffer upon my approaching it, but the mark
that forewarns me of it. In like manner the noise that I hear
is not the effect of this or that motion or collision of the ambient
bodies, but the sign thereof. Secondly, the reason why ideas are
formed into machines, that is, artificial and regular combinations,
is the same with that for combining letters into words. That a
few original ideas may be made to signify a great number of effects
and actions, it is necessary they be variously combined together.
And, to the end their use be permanent and universal, these combinations
must be made by rule, and with wise contrivance. By this means
abundance of information is conveyed unto us, concerning what
we are to expect from such and such actions and what methods are
proper to be taken for the exciting such and such ideas; which
in effect is all that I conceive to be distinctly meant when it
is said that, by discerning a figure, texture, and mechanism of
the inward parts of bodies, whether natural or artificial, we
may attain to know the several uses and properties depending thereon,
or the nature of the thing. 66. Hence, it is evident that those
things which, under the notion of a cause co-operating or concurring
to the production of effects, are altogether inexplicable, and
run us into great absurdities, may be very naturally explained,
and have a proper and obvious use assigned to them, when they
are considered only as marks or signs for our information. And
it is the searching after and endeavouring to understand those
signs instituted by the Author of Nature, that ought to be the
employment of the natural philosopher; and not the pretending
to explain things by corporeal causes, which doctrine seems to
have too much estranged the minds of men from that active principle,
that supreme and wise Spirit "in whom we live, move, and
have our being." 67. In the twelfth place, it may perhaps
be objected that- though it be clear from what has been said that
there can be no such thing as an inert, senseless, extended, solid,
figured, movable substance existing without the mind, such as
philosophers describe Matter- yet, if any man shall leave out
of his idea of matter the positive ideas of extension, figure,
solidity and motion, and say that he means only by that word an
inert, senseless substance, that exists without the mind or unperceived,
which is the occasion of our ideas, or at the presence whereof
God is pleased to excite ideas in us: it doth not appear but that
Matter taken in this sense may possibly exist. In answer to which
I say, first, that it seems no less absurd to suppose a substance
without accidents, than it is to suppose accidents without a substance.
But secondly, though we should grant this unknown substance may
possibly exist, yet where can it be supposed to be? That it exists
not in the mind is agreed; and that it exists not in place is
no less certain- since all place or extension exists only in the
mind, as hath been already proved. It remains therefore that it
exists nowhere at all. 68. Let us examine a little the description
that is here given us of matter. It neither acts, nor perceives,
nor is perceived; for this is all that is meant by saying it is
an inert, senseless, unknown substance; which is a definition
entirely made up of negatives, excepting only the relative notion
of its standing under or supporting. But then it must be observed
that it supports nothing at all, and how nearly this comes to
the description of a nonentity I desire may be considered. But,
say you, it is the unknown occasion, at the presence of which
ideas are excited in us by the will of God. Now, I would fain
know how anything can be present to us, which is neither perceivable
by sense nor reflexion, nor capable of producing any idea in our
minds, nor is at all extended, nor hath any form, nor exists in
any place. The words "to be present," when thus applied,
must needs be taken in some abstract and strange meaning, and
which I am not able to comprehend. 69. Again, let us examine what
is meant by occasion. So far as I can gather from the common use
of language, that word signifies either the agent which produces
any effect, or else something that is observed to accompany or
go before it in the ordinary course of things. But when it is
applied to Matter as above described, it can be taken in neither
of those senses; for Matter is said to be passive and inert, and
so cannot be an agent or efficient cause. It is also unperceivable,
as being devoid of all sensible qualities, and so cannot be the
occasion of our perceptions in the latter sense: as when the burning
my finger is said to be the occasion of the pain that attends
it. What therefore can be meant by calling matter an occasion?
The term is either used in no sense at all, or else in some very
distant from its received signification. 70. You will Perhaps
say that Matter, though it be not perceived by us, is nevertheless
perceived by God, to whom it is the occasion of exciting ideas
in our minds. For, say you, since we observe our sensations to
be imprinted in an orderly and constant manner, it is but reasonable
to suppose there are certain constant and regular occasions of
their being produced. That is to say, that there are certain permanent
and distinct parcels of Matter, corresponding to our ideas, which,
though they do not excite them in our minds, or anywise immediately
affect us, as being altogether passive and unperceivable to us,
they are nevertheless to God, by whom they art perceived, as it
were so many occasions to remind Him when and what ideas to imprint
on our minds; that so things may go on in a constant uniform manner.
71. In answer to this, I observe that, as the notion of Matter
is here stated, the question is no longer concerning the existence
of a thing distinct from Spirit and idea, from perceiving and
being perceived; but whether there are not certain ideas of I
know not what sort, in the mind of God which are so many marks
or notes that direct Him how to produce sensations in our minds
in a constant and regular method- much after the same manner as
a musician is directed by the notes of music to produce that harmonious
train and composition of sound which is called a tune, though
they who hear the music do not perceive the notes, and may be
entirely ignorant of them. But, this notion of Matter seems too
extravagant to deserve a confutation. Besides, it is in effect
no objection against what we have advanced, viz. that there is
no senseless unperceived substance. 72. If we follow the light
of reason, we shall, from the constant uniform method of our sensations,
collect the goodness and wisdom of the Spirit who excites them
in our minds; but this is all that I can see reasonably concluded
from thence. To me, I say, it is evident that the being of a spirit
infinitely wise, good, and powerful is abundantly sufficient to
explain all the appearances of nature. But, as for inert, senseless
Matter, nothing that I perceive has any the least connexion with
it, or leads to the thoughts of it. And I would fain see any one
explain any the meanest phenomenon in nature by it, or shew any
manner of reason, though in the lowest rank of probability, that
he can have for its existence, or even make any tolerable sense
or meaning of that supposition. For, as to its being an occasion,
we have, I think, evidently shewn that with regard to us it is
no occasion. It remains therefore that it must be, if at all,
the occasion to God of exciting ideas in us; and what this amounts
to we have just now seen. 73. It is worth while to reflect a little
on the motives which induced men to suppose the existence of material
substance; that so having observed the gradual ceasing and expiration
of those motives or reasons, we may proportionably withdraw the
assent that was grounded on them. First, therefore, it was thought
that colour, figure, motion, and the rest of the sensible qualities
or accidents, did really exist without the mind; and for this
reason it seemed needful to suppose some unthinking substratum
or substance wherein they did exist, since they could not be conceived
to exist by themselves. Afterwards, in process of time, men being
convinced that colours, sounds, and the rest of the sensible,
secondary qualities had no existence without the mind, they stripped
this substratum or material substance of those qualities, leaving
only the primary ones, figure, motion, and suchlike, which they
still conceived to exist without the mind, and consequently to
stand in need of a material support. But, it having been shewn
that none even of these can possibly exist otherwise than in a
Spirit or Mind which perceives them it follows that we have no
longer any reason to suppose the being of Matter; nay, that it
is utterly impossible there should be any such thing, so long
as that word is taken to denote an unthinking substratum of qualities
or accidents wherein they exist without the mind. 74. But though
it be allowed by the materialists themselves that Matter was thought
of only for the sake of supporting accidents, and, the reason
entirely ceasing, one might expect the mind should naturally,
and without any reluctance at all, quit the belief of what was
solely grounded thereon; yet the prejudice is riveted so deeply
in our thoughts, that we can scarce tell how to part with it,
and are therefore inclined, since the thing itself is indefensible,
at least to retain the name, which we apply to I know not what
abstracted and indefinite notions of being, or occasion, though
without any show of reason, at least so far as I can see. For,
what is there on our part, or what do we perceive, amongst all
the ideas, sensations, notions which are imprinted on our minds,
either by sense or reflexion, from whence may be inferred the
existence of an inert, thoughtless, unperceived occasion? and,
on the other hand, on the part of an All-sufficient Spirit, what
can there be that should make us believe or even suspect He is
directed by an inert occasion to excite ideas in our minds? 75.
It is a very extraordinary instance of the force of prejudice,
and much to be lamented, that the mind of man retains so great
a fondness, against all the evidence of reason, for a stupid thoughtless
somewhat, by the interposition whereof it would as it were screen
itself from the Providence of God, and remove it farther off from
the affairs of the world. But, though we do the utmost we can
to secure the belief of Matter, though, when reason forsakes us,
we endeavour to support our opinion on the bare possibility of
the thing, and though we indulge ourselves in the full scope of
an imagination not regulated by reason to make out that poor possibility,
yet the upshot of all is, that there are certain unknown Ideas
in the mind of God; for this, if anything, is all that I conceive
to be meant by occasion with regard to God. And this at the bottom
is no longer contending for the thing, but for the name. 76. Whether
therefore there are such Ideas in the mind of God, and whether
they may be called by the name Matter, I shall not dispute. But,
if you stick to the notion of an unthinking substance or support
of extension, motion, and other sensible qualities, then to me
it is most evidently impossible there should be any such thing,
since it is a plain repugnancy that those qualities should exist
in or be supported by an unperceiving substance. 77. But, say
you, though it be granted that there is no thoughtless support
of extension and the other qualities or accidents which we perceive,
yet there may perhaps be some inert, unperceiving substance or
substratum of some other qualities, as incomprehensible to us
as colours are to a man born blind, because we have not a sense
adapted to them. But, if we had a new sense, we should possibly
no more doubt of their existence than a blind man made to see
does of the existence of light and colours. I answer, first, if
what you mean by the word Matter be only the unknown support of
unknown qualities, it is no matter whether there is such a thing
or no, since it no way concerns us; and I do not see the advantage
there is in disputing about what we know not what, and we know
not why. 78. But, secondly, if we had a new sense it could only
furnish us with new ideas or sensations; and then we should have
the same reason against their existing in an unperceiving substance
that has been already offered with relation to figure, motion,
colour and the like. Qualities, as hath been shewn, are nothing
else but sensations or ideas, which exist only in a mind perceiving
them; and this is true not only of the ideas we are acquainted
with at present, but likewise of all possible ideas whatsoever.
79. But, you will insist, what if I have no reason to believe
the existence of Matter? what if I cannot assign any use to it
or explain anything by it, or even conceive what is meant by that
word? yet still it is no contradiction to say that Matter exists,
and that this Matter is in general a substance, or occasion of
ideas; though indeed to go about to unfold the meaning or adhere
to any particular explication of those words may be attended with
great difficulties. I answer, when words are used without a meaning,
you may put them together as you please without danger of running
into a contradiction. You may say, for example, that twice two
is equal to seven, so long as you declare you do not take the
words of that proposition in their usual acceptation but for marks
of you know not what. And, by the same reason, you may say there
is an inert thoughtless substance without accidents which is the
occasion of our ideas. And we shall understand just as much by
one proposition as the other. 80. In the last place, you will
say, what if we give up the cause of material Substance, and stand
to it that Matter is an unknown somewhat- neither substance nor
accident, spirit nor idea, inert, thoughtless, indivisible, immovable,
unextended, existing in no place. For, say you, whatever may be
urged against substance or occasion, or any other positive or
relative notion of Matter, hath no place at all, so long as this
negative definition of Matter is adhered to. I answer, you may,
if so it shall seem good, use the word "Matter" in the
same sense as other men use "nothing," and so make those
terms convertible in your style. For, after all, this is what
appears to me to be the result of that definition, the parts whereof
when I consider with attention, either collectively or separate
from each other, I do not find that there is any kind of effect
or impression made on my mind different from what is excited by
the term nothing. 81. You will reply, perhaps, that in the fore-said
definition is included what doth sufficiently distinguish it from
nothing- the positive abstract idea of quiddity, entity, or existence.
I own, indeed, that those who pretend to the faculty of framing
abstract general ideas do talk as if they had such an idea, which
is, say they, the most abstract and general notion of all; that
is, to me, the most incomprehensible of all others. That there
are a great variety of spirits of different orders and capacities,
whose faculties both in number and extent are far exceeding those
the Author of my being has bestowed on me, I see no reason to
deny. And for me to pretend to determine by my own few, stinted
narrow inlets of perception, what ideas the inexhaustible power
of the Supreme Spirit may imprint upon them were certainly the
utmost folly and presumption- since there may be, for aught that
I know, innumerable sorts of ideas or sensations, as different
from one another, and from all that I have perceived, as colours
are from sounds. But, how ready soever I may be to acknowledge
the scantiness of my comprehension with regard to the endless
variety of spirits and ideas that may possibly exist, yet for
any one to pretend to a notion of Entity or Existence, abstracted
from spirit and idea, from perceived and being perceived, is,
I suspect, a downright repugnancy and trifling with words.- It
remains that we consider the objections which may possibly be
made on the part of Religion. 82. Some there are who think that,
though the arguments for the real existence of bodies which are
drawn from Reason be allowed not to amount to demonstration, yet
the Holy Scriptures are so clear in the point as will sufficiently
convince every good Christian that bodies do really exist, and
are something more than mere ideas; there being in Holy Writ innumerable
facts related which evidently suppose the reality of timber and
stone, mountains and rivers, and cities, and human bodies. To
which I answer that no sort of writings whatever, sacred or profane,
which use those and the like words in the vulgar acceptation,
or so as to have a meaning in them, are in danger of having their
truth called in question by our doctrine. That all those things
do really exist, that there are bodies, even corporeal substances,
when taken in the vulgar sense, has been shewn to be agreeable
to our principles; and the difference betwixt things and ideas,
realities and chimeras, has been distinctly explained. See sect.
29, 30, 33, 36, &c. And I do not think that either what philosophers
call Matter, or the existence of objects without the mind, is
anywhere mentioned in Scripture. 83. Again, whether there can
be or be not external things, it is agreed on all hands that the
proper use of words is the marking our conceptions, or things
only as they are known and perceived by us; whence it plainly
follows that in the tenets we have laid down there is nothing
inconsistent with the right use and significancy of language,
and that discourse, of what kind soever, so far as it is intelligible,
remains undisturbed. But all this seems so manifest, from what
has been largely set forth in the premises, that it is needless
to insist any farther on it. 84. But, it will be urged that miracles
do, at least, lose much of their stress and import by our principles.
What must we think of Moses' rod? was it not really turned into
a serpent; or was there only a change of ideas in the minds of
the spectators? And, can it be supposed that our Saviour did no
more at the marriage-feast in Cana than impose on the sight, and
smell, and taste of the guests, so as to create in them the appearance
or idea only of wine? The same may be said of all other miracles;
which, in consequence of the foregoing principles, must be looked
upon only as so many cheats, or illusions of fancy. To this I
reply, that the rod was changed into a real serpent, and the water
into real wine. That this does not in the least contradict what
I have elsewhere said will be evident from sect. 34 and 35. But
this business of real and imaginary has been already so plainly
and fully explained, and so often referred to, and the difficulties
about it are so easily answered from what has gone before, that
it were an affront to the reader's understanding to resume the
explication of it in its place. I shall only observe that if at
table all who were present should see, and smell, and taste, and
drink wine, and find the effects of it, with me there could be
no doubt of its reality; so that at bottom the scruple concerning
real miracles has no place at all on ours, but only on the received
principles, and consequently makes rather for than against what
has been said. 85. Having done with the Objections, which I endeavoured
to propose in the clearest light, and gave them all the force
and weight I could, we proceed in the next place to take a view
of our tenets in their Consequences. Some of these appear at first
sight- as that several difficult and obscure questions, on which
abundance of speculation has been thrown away, are entirely banished
from philosophy. "Whether corporeal substance can think,"
"whether Matter be infinitely divisible," and "how
it operates on spirit"- these and like inquiries have given
infinite amusement to philosophers in all ages; but depending
on the existence of Matter, they have no longer any place on our
principles. Many other advantages there are, as well with regard
to religion as the sciences, which it is easy for any one to deduce
from what has been premised; but this will appear more plainly
in the sequel. 86. From the principles we have laid down it follows
human knowledge may naturally be reduced to two heads- that of
ideas and that of spirits. Of each of these I shall treat in order.
And first as to ideas or unthinking things. Our knowledge of these
hath been very much obscured and confounded, and we have been
led into very dangerous errors, by supposing a twofold existence
of the objects of sense- the one intelligible or in the mind,
the other real and without the mind; whereby unthinking things
are thought to have a natural subsistence of their own distinct
from being perceived by spirits. This, which, if I mistake not,
hath been shewn to be a most groundless and absurd notion, is
the very root of Scepticism; for, so long as men thought that
real things subsisted without the mind, and that their knowledge
was only so far forth real as it was conformable to real things,
it follows they could not be certain they had any real knowledge
at all. For how can it be known that the things which are perceived
are conformable to those which are not perceived, or exist without
the mind? 87. Colour, figure, motion, extension, and the like,
considered only as so many sensations in the mind, are perfectly
known, there being nothing in them which is not perceived. But,
if they are looked on as notes or images, referred to things or
archetypes existing without the mind, then are we involved all
in scepticism. We see only the appearances, and not the real qualities
of things. What may be the extension, figure, or motion of anything
really and absolutely, or in itself, it is impossible for us to
know, but only the proportion or relation they bear to our senses.
Things remaining the same, our ideas vary, and which of them,
or even whether any of them at all, represent the true quality
really existing in the thing, it is out of our reach to determine.
So that, for aught we know, all we see, hear, and feel may be
only phantom and vain chimera, and not at all agree with the real
things existing in rerum natura. All this scepticism follows from
our supposing a difference between things and ideas, and that
the former have a subsistence without the mind or unperceived.
It were easy to dilate on this subject, and show how the arguments
urged by sceptics in all ages depend on the supposition of external
objects. 88. So long as we attribute a real existence to unthinking
things, distinct from their being perceived, it is not only impossible
for us to know with evidence the nature of any real unthinking
being, but even that it exists. Hence it is that we see philosophers
distrust their senses, and doubt of the existence of heaven and
earth, of everything they see or feel, even of their own bodies.
And, after all their labour and struggle of thought, they are
forced to own we cannot attain to any self-evident or demonstrative
knowledge of the existence of sensible things. But, all this doubtfulness,
which so bewilders and confounds the mind and makes philosophy
ridiculous in the eyes of the world, vanishes if we annex a meaning
to our words. and not amuse ourselves with the terms "absolute,"
"external," "exist, "and such-like, signifying
we know not what. I can as well doubt of my own being as of the
being of those things which I actually perceive by sense; it being
a manifest contradiction that any sensible object should be immediately
perceived by sight or touch, and at the same time have no existence
in nature, since the very existence of an unthinking being consists
in being perceived. 89. Nothing seems of more importance towards
erecting a firm system of sound and real knowledge, which may
be proof against the assaults of Scepticism, than to lay the beginning
in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality,
existence; for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence
of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we
have not fixed the meaning of those words. Thing or Being is the
most general name of all; it comprehends under it two kinds entirely
distinct and heterogeneous, and which have nothing common but
the name. viz. spirits and ideas. The former are active, indivisible
substances: the latter are inert, fleeting, dependent beings,
which subsist not by themselves, but are supported by, or exist
in minds or spiritual substances. We comprehend our own existence
by inward feeling or reflexion, and that of other spirits by reason.
We may be said to have some knowledge or notion of our own minds,
of spirits and active beings, whereof in a strict sense we have
not ideas. In like manner, we know and have a notion of relations
between things or ideas- which relations are distinct from the
ideas or things related, inasmuch as the latter may be perceived
by us without our perceiving the former. To me it seems that ideas,
spirits, and relations are all in their respective kinds the object
of human knowledge and subject of discourse; and that the term
idea would be improperly extended to signify everything we know
or have any notion of. 90. Ideas imprinted on the senses are real
things, or do really exist; this we do not deny, but we deny they
can subsist without the minds which perceive them, or that they
are resemblances of any archetypes existing without the mind;
since the very being of a sensation or idea consists in being
perceived, and an idea can be like nothing but an idea. Again,
the things perceived by sense may be termed external, with regard
to their origin- in that they are not generated from within by
the mind itself, but imprinted by a Spirit distinct from that
which perceives them. Sensible objects may likewise be said to
be "without the mind" in another sense, namely when
they exist in some other mind; thus, when I shut my eyes, the
things I saw may still exist, but it must be in another mind.
91. It were a mistake to think that what is here said derogates
in the least from the reality of things. It is acknowledged, on
the received principles, that extension, motion, and in a word
all sensible qualities have need of a support, as not being able
to subsist by themselves. But the objects perceived by sense are
allowed to be nothing but combinations of those qualities, and
consequently cannot subsist by themselves. Thus far it is agreed
on all hand. So that in denying the things perceived by sense
an existence independent of a substance of support wherein they
may exist, we detract nothing from the received opinion of their
reality, and are guilty of no innovation in that respect. All
the difference is that, according to us, the unthinking beings
perceived by sense have no existence distinct from being perceived,
and cannot therefore exist in any other substance than those unextended
indivisible substances or spirits which act and think and perceive
them; whereas philosophers vulgarly hold that the sensible qualities
do exist in an inert, extended, unperceiving substance which they
call Matter, to which they attribute a natural subsistence, exterior
to all thinking beings, or distinct from being perceived by any
mind whatsoever, even the eternal mind of the Creator, wherein
they suppose only ideas of the corporeal substances created by
him; if indeed they allow them to be at all created. 92. For,
as we have shewn the doctrine of Matter or corporeal substance
to have been the main pillar and support of Scepticism, so likewise
upon the same foundation have been raised all the impious schemes
of Atheism and Irreligion. Nay, so great a difficulty has it been
thought to conceive Matter produced out of nothing, that the most
celebrated among the ancient philosophers, even of those who maintained
the being of a God, have thought Matter to be uncreated and co-eternal
with Him. How great a friend material substance has been to Atheists
in all ages were needless to relate. All their monstrous systems
have so visible and necessary a dependence on it that, when this
corner-stone is once removed, the whole fabric cannot choose but
fall to the ground, insomuch that it is no longer worth while
to bestow a particular consideration on the absurdities of every
wretched sect of Atheists. 93. That impious and profane persons
should readily fall in with those systems which favour their inclinations,
by deriding immaterial substance, and supposing the soul to be
divisible and subject to corruption as the body; which exclude
all freedom, intelligence, and design from the formation of things,
and instead thereof make a self-existent, stupid, unthinking substance
the root and origin of all beings; that they should hearken to
those who deny a Providence, or inspection of a Superior Mind
over the affairs of the world, attributing the whole series of
events either to blind chance or fatal necessity arising from
the impulse of one body or another- all this is very natural.
And, on the other hand, when men of better principles observe
the enemies of religion lay so great a stress on unthinking Matter,
and all of them use so much industry and artifice to reduce everything
to it, methinks they should rejoice to see them deprived of their
grand support, and driven from that only fortress, without which
your Epicureans, Hobbists, and the like, have not even the shadow
of a pretence, but become the most cheap and easy triumph in the
world. 94. The existence of Matter, or bodies unperceived, has
not only been the main support of Atheists and Fatalists, but
on the same principle doth Idolatry likewise in all its various
forms depend. Did men but consider that the sun, moon, and stars,
and every other object of the senses are only so many sensations
in their minds, which have no other existence but barely being
perceived, doubtless they would never fall down and worship their
own ideas, but rather address their homage to that ETERNAL INVISIBLE
MIND which produces and sustains all things. 95. The same absurd
principle, by mingling itself with the articles of our faith,
has occasioned no small difficulties to Christians. For example,
about the Resurrection, how many scruples and objections have
been raised by Socinians and others? But do not the most plausible
of them depend on the supposition that a body is denominated the
same, with regard not to the form or that which is perceived by
sense, but the material substance, which remains the same under
several forms? Take away this material substance, about the identity
whereof all the dispute is, and mean by body what every plain
ordinary person means by that word, to wit, that which is immediately
seen and felt, which is only a combination of sensible qualities
or ideas, and then their most unanswerable objections come to
nothing. 96. Matter being once expelled out of nature drags with
it so many sceptical and impious notions, such an incredible number
of disputes and puzzling questions, which have been thorns in
the sides of divines as well as philosophers, and made so much
fruitless work for mankind, that if the arguments we have produced
against it are not found equal to demonstration (as to me they
evidently seem), yet I am sure all friends to knowledge, peace,
and religion have reason to wish they were. 97. Beside the external
existence of the objects of perception, another great source of
errors and difficulties with regard to ideal knowledge is the
doctrine of abstract ideas, such as it hath been set forth in
the Introduction. The plainest things in the world, those we are
most intimately acquainted with and perfectly know, when they
are considered in an abstract way, appear strangely difficult
and incomprehensible. Time, place, and motion, taken in particular
or concrete, are what everybody knows, but, having passed through
the hands of a metaphysician, they become too abstract and fine
to be apprehended by men of ordinary sense. Bid your servant meet
you at such a time in such a place, and he shall never stay to
deliberate on the meaning of those words; in conceiving that particular
time and place, or the motion by which he is to get thither, he
finds not the least difficulty. But if time be taken exclusive
of all those particular actions and ideas that diversify the day,
merely for the continuation of existence or duration in abstract,
then it will perhaps gravel even a philosopher to comprehend it.
98. For my own part, whenever I attempt to frame a simple idea
of time, abstracted from the succession of ideas in my mind, which
flows uniformly and is participated by all beings, I am lost and
embrangled in inextricable difficulties. I have no notion of it
at all, only I hear others say it is infinitely divisible, and
speak of it in such a manner as leads me to entertain odd thoughts
of my existence; since that doctrine lays one under an absolute
necessity of thinking, either that he passes away innumerable
ages without a thought, or else that he is annihilated every moment
of his life, both which seem equally absurd. Time therefore being
nothing, abstracted from the sucession of ideas in our minds,
it follows that the duration of any finite spirit must be estimated
by the number of ideas or actions succeeding each other in that
same spirit or mind. Hence, it is a plain consequence that the
soul always thinks; and in truth whoever shall go about to divide
in his thoughts, or abstract the existence of a spirit from its
cogitation, will, I believe, find it no easy task. 99. So likewise
when we attempt to abstract extension and motion from all other
qualities, and consider them by themselves, we presently lose
sight of them, and run into great extravagances. All which depend
on a twofold abstraction; first, it is supposed that extension,
for example, may be abstracted from all other sensible qualities;
and secondly, that the entity of extension may be abstracted from
its being perceived. But, whoever shall reflect, and take care
to understand what he says, will, if I mistake not, acknowledge
that all sensible qualities are alike sensations and alike real;
that where the extension is, there is the colour, too, i.e., in
his mind, and that their archetypes can exist only in some other
mind; and that the objects of sense are nothing but those sensations
combined, blended, or (if one may so speak) concreted together;
none of all which can be supposed to exist unperceived. 100. What
it is for a man to be happy, or an object good, every one may
think he knows. But to frame an abstract idea of happiness, prescinded
from all particular pleasure, or of goodness from everything that
is good, this is what few can pretend to. So likewise a man may
be just and virtuous without having precise ideas of justice and
virtue. The opinion that those and the like words stand for general
notions, abstracted from all particular persons and actions, seems
to have rendered morality very difficult, and the study thereof
of small use to mankind. And in effect the doctrine of abstraction
has not a little contributed towards spoiling the most useful
parts of knowledge. 101. The two great provinces of speculative
science conversant about ideas received from sense, are Natural
Philosophy and Mathematics; with regard to each of these I shall
make some observations. And first I shall say somewhat of Natural
Philosophy. On this subject it is that the sceptics triumph. All
that stock of arguments they produce to depreciate our faculties
and make mankind appear ignorant and low, are drawn principally
from this head, namely, that we are under an invincible blindness
as to the true and real nature of things. This they exaggerate,
and love to enlarge on. We are miserably bantered, say they, by
our senses, and amused only with the outside and show of things.
The real essence, the internal qualities and constitution of every
the meanest object, is hid from our view; something there is in
every drop of water, every grain of sand, which it is beyond the
power of human understanding to fathom or comprehend. But, it
is evident from what has been shewn that all this complaint is
groundless, and that we are influenced by false principles to
that degree as to mistrust our senses, and think we know nothing
of those things which we perfectly comprehend. 102. One great
inducement to our pronouncing ourselves ignorant of the nature
of things is the current opinion that everything includes within
itself the cause of its properties; or that there is in each object
an inward essence which is the source whence its discernible qualities
flow, and whereon they depend. Some have pretended to account
for appearances by occult qualities, but of late they are mostly
resolved into mechanical causes, to wit. the figure, motion, weight,
and suchlike qualities, of insensible particles; whereas, in truth,
there is no other agent or efficient cause than spirit, it being
evident that motion, as well as all other ideas, is perfectly
inert. See sect. 25. Hence, to endeavour to explain the production
of colours or sounds, by figure, motion, magnitude, and the like,
must needs be labour in vain. And accordingly we see the attempts
of that kind are not at all satisfactory. Which may be said in
general of those instances wherein one idea or quality is assigned
for the cause of another. I need not say how many hypotheses and
speculations are left out, and how much the study of nature is
abridged by this doctrine. 103. The great mechanical principle
now in vogue is attraction. That a stone falls to the earth, or
the sea swells towards the moon, may to some appear sufficiently
explained thereby. But how are we enlightened by being told this
is done by attraction? Is it that that word signifies the manner
of the tendency, and that it is by the mutual drawing of bodies
instead of their being impelled or protruded towards each other?
But, nothing is determined of the manner or action, and it may
as truly (for aught we know) be termed "impulse," or
"protrusion," as "attraction." Again, the
parts of steel we see cohere firmly together, and this also is
accounted for by attraction; but, in this as in the other instances,
I do not perceive that anything is signified besides the effect
itself; for as to the manner of the action whereby it is produced,
or the cause which produces it, these are not so much as aimed
at. 104. Indeed, if we take a view of the several phenomena, and
compare them together, we may observe some likeness and conformity
between them. For example, in the falling of a stone to the ground,
in the rising of the sea towards the moon, in cohesion, crystallization,
etc, there is something alike, namely, an union or mutual approach
of bodies. So that any one of these or the like phenomena may
not seem strange or surprising to a man who has nicely observed
and compared the effects of nature. For that only is thought so
which is uncommon, or a thing by itself, and out of the ordinary
course of our observation. That bodies should tend towards the
centre of the earth is not thought strange, because it is what
we perceive every moment of our lives. But, that they should have
a like gravitation towards the centre of the moon may seem odd
and unaccountable to most men, because it is discerned only in
the tides. But a philosopher, whose thoughts take in a larger
compass of nature, having observed a certain similitude of appearances,
as well in the heavens as the earth, that argue innumerable bodies
to have a mutual tendency towards each other, which he denotes
by the general name "attraction," whatever can be reduced
to that he thinks justly accounted for. Thus he explains the tides
by the attraction of the terraqueous globe towards the moon, which
to him does not appear odd or anomalous, but only a particular
example of a general rule or law of nature. 105. If therefore
we consider the difference there is betwixt natural philosophers
and other men, with regard to their knowledge of the phenomena,
we shall find it consists not in an exacter knowledge of the efficient
cause that produces them- for that can be no other than the will
of a spirit- but only in a greater largeness of comprehension,
whereby analogies, harmonies, and agreements are discovered in
the works of nature, and the particular effects explained, that
is, reduced to general rules, see sect. 62, which rules, grounded
on the analogy and uniformness observed in the production of natural
effects, are most agreeable and sought after by the mind; for
that they extend our prospect beyond what is present and near
to us, and enable us to make very probable conjectures touching
things that may have happened at very great distances of time
and place, as well as to predict things to come; which sort of
endeavour towards omniscience is much affected by the mind. 106.
But we should proceed warily in such things, for we are apt to
lay too great stress on analogies, and, to the prejudice of truth,
humour that eagerness of the mind whereby it is carried to extend
its knowledge into general theorems. For example, in the business
of gravitation or mutual attraction, because it appears in many
instances, some are straightway for pronouncing it universal;
and that to attract and be attracted by every other body is an
essential quality inherent in all bodies whatsoever. Whereas it
is evident the fixed stars have no such tendency towards each
other; and, so far is that gravitation from being essential to
bodies that in some instances a quite contrary principle seems
to shew itself; as in the perpendicular growth of plants, and
the elasticity of the air. There is nothing necessary or essential
in the case, but it depends entirely on the will of the Governing
Spirit, who causes certain bodies to cleave together or tend towards
each other according to various laws, whilst He keeps others at
a fixed distance; and to some He gives a quite contrary tendency
to fly asunder just as He sees convenient. 107. After what has
been premised, I think we may lay down the following conclusions.
First, it is plain philosophers amuse themselves in vain, when
they inquire for any natural efficient cause, distinct from a
mind or spirit. Secondly, considering the whole creation is the
workmanship of a wise and good Agent, it should seem to become
philosophers to employ their thoughts (contrary to what some hold)
about the final causes of things; and I confess I see no reason
why pointing out the various ends to which natural things are
adapted, and for which they were originally with unspeakable wisdom
contrived, should not be thought one good way of accounting for
them, and altogether worthy a philosopher. Thirdly, from what
has been premised no reason can be drawn why the history of nature
should not still be studied, and observations and experiments
made, which, that they are of use to mankind, and enable us to
draw any general conclusions, is not the result of any immutable
habitudes or relations between things themselves, but only of
God's goodness and kindness to men in the administration of the
world. See sect. 30 and 31 Fourthly, by a diligent observation
of the phenomena within our view, we may discover the general
laws of nature, and from them deduce the other phenomena; I do
not say demonstrate, for all deductions of that kind depend on
a supposition that the Author of nature always operates uniformly,
and in a constant observance of those rules we take for principles:
which we cannot evidently know. 108. Those men who frame general
rules from the phenomena and afterwards derive the phenomena from
those rules, seem to consider signs rather than causes. A man
may well understand natural signs without knowing their analogy,
or being able to say by what rule a thing is so or so. And, as
it is very possible to write improperly, through too strict an
observance of general grammar rules; so, in arguing from general
laws of nature, it is not impossible we may extend the analogy
too far, and by that means run into mistakes. 109. As in reading
other books a wise man will choose to fix his thoughts on the
sense and apply it to use, rather than lay them out in grammatical
remarks on the language; so, in perusing the volume of nature,
it seems beneath the dignity of the mind to affect an exactness
in reducing each particular phenomenon to general rules, or shewing
how it follows from them. We should propose to ourselves nobler
views, namely, to recreate and exalt the mind with a prospect
of the beauty, order. extent, and variety of natural things: hence,
by proper inferences, to enlarge our notions of the grandeur,
wisdom, and beneficence of the Creator; and lastly, to make the
several parts of the creation, so far as in us lies, subservient
to the ends they were designed for, God's glory, and the sustentation
and comfort of ourselves and fellow-creatures. 110. The best key
for the aforesaid analogy or natural Science will be easily acknowledged
to be a certain celebrated Treatise of Mechanics. In the entrance
of which justly admired treatise, Time, Space, and Motion are
distinguished into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical
and vulgar; which distinction, as it is at large explained by
the author, does suppose these quantities to have an existence
without the mind; and that they are ordinarily conceived with
relation to sensible things, to which nevertheless in their own
nature they bear no relation at all. 111. As for Time, as it is
there taken in an absolute or abstracted sense, for the duration
or perseverance of the existence of things, I have nothing more
to add concerning it after what has been already said on that
subject. Sect. 97 and 98. For the rest, this celebrated author
holds there is an absolute Space, which, being unperceivable to
sense, remains in itself similar and immovable; and relative space
to be the measure thereof, which, being movable and defined by
its situation in respect of sensible bodies, is vulgarly taken
for immovable space. Place he defines to be that part of space
which is occupied by any body; and according as the space is absolute
or relative so also is the place. Absolute Motion is said to be
the translation of a body from absolute place to absolute place,
as relative motion is from one relative place to another. And,
because the parts of absolute space do not fall under our senses,
instead of them we are obliged to use their sensible measures,
and so define both place and motion with respect to bodies which
we regard as immovable. But, it is said in philosophical matters
we must abstract from our senses, since it may be that none of
those bodies which seem to be quiescent are truly so, and the
same thing which is moved relatively may be really at rest; as
likewise one and the same body may be in relative rest and motion,
or even moved with contrary relative motions at the same time,
according as its place is variously defined. All which ambiguity
is to be found in the apparent motions, but not at all in the
true or absolute, which should therefore be alone regarded in
philosophy. And the true as we are told are distinguished from
apparent or relative motions by the following properties.- First,
in true or absolute motion all parts which preserve the same position
with respect of the whole, partake of the motions of the whole.
Secondly, the place being moved, that which is placed therein
is also moved; so that a body moving in a place which is in motion
doth participate the motion of its place. Thirdly, true motion
is never generated or changed otherwise than by force impressed
on the body itself. Fourthly, true motion is always changed by
force impressed on the body moved. Fifthly, in circular motion
barely relative there is no centrifugal force, which, nevertheless,
in that which is true or absolute, is proportional to the quantity
of motion. 112. But, notwithstanding what has been said, I must
confess it does not appear to me that there can be any motion
other than relative; so that to conceive motion there must be
at least conceived two bodies, whereof the distance or position
in regard to each other is varied. Hence, if there was one only
body in being it could not possibly be moved. This seems evident,
in that the idea I have of motion doth necessarily include relation.
113. But, though in every motion it be necessary to conceive more
bodies than one, yet it may be that one only is moved, namely,
that on which the force causing the change in the distance or
situation of the bodies, is impressed. For, however some may define
relative motion, so as to term that body moved which changes its
distance from some other body, whether the force or action causing
that change were impressed on it or no, yet as relative motion
is that which is perceived by sense, and regarded in the ordinary
affairs of life, it should seem that every man of common sense
knows what it is as well as the best philosopher. Now, I ask any
one whether, in his sense of motion as he walks along the streets,
the stones he passes over may be said to move, because they change
distance with his feet? To me it appears that though motion includes
a relation of one thing to another, yet it is not necessary that
each term of the relation be denominated from it. As a man may
think of somewhat which does not think, so a body may be moved
to or from another body which is not therefore itself in motion.
114. As the place happens to be variously defined, the motion
which is related to it varies. A man in a ship may be said to
be quiescent with relation to the sides of the vessel, and yet
move with relation to the land. Or he may move eastward in respect
of the one, and westward in respect of the other. In the common
affairs of life men never go beyond the earth to define the place
of any body; and what is quiescent in respect of that is accounted
absolutely to be so. But philosophers, who have a greater extent
of thought, and juster notions of the system of things, discover
even the earth itself to be moved. In order therefore to fix their
notions they seem to conceive the corporeal world as finite, and
the utmost unmoved walls or shell thereof to be the place whereby
they estimate true motions. If we sound our own conceptions, I
believe we may find all the absolute motion we can frame an idea
of to be at bottom no other than relative motion thus defined.
For, as hath been already observed, absolute motion, exclusive
of all external relation, is incomprehensible; and to this kind
of relative motion all the above-mentioned properties, causes,
and effects ascribed to absolute motion will, if I mistake not,
be found to agree. As to what is said of the centrifugal force,
that it does not at all belong to circular relative motion, I
do not see how this follows from the experiment which is brought
to prove it. See Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica,
in Schol. Def. VIII. For the water in the vessel at that time
wherein it is said to have the greatest relative circular motion,
hath, I think, no motion at all; as is plain from the foregoing
section. 115. For, to denominate a body moved it is requisite,
first, that it change its distance or situation with regard to
some other body; and secondly, that the force occasioning that
change be applied to it. If either of these be wanting, I do not
think that, agreeably to the sense of mankind, or the propriety
of language, a body can be said to be in motion. I grant indeed
that it is possible for us to think a body which we see change
its distance from some other to be moved, though it have no force
applied to it (in which sense there may be apparent motion), but
then it is because the force causing the change of distance is
imagined by us to be applied or impressed on that body thought
to move; which indeed shews we are capable of mistaking a thing
to be in motion which is not, and that is all. 116. From what
has been said it follows that the philosophic consideration of
motion does not imply the being of an absolute Space, distinct
from that which is perceived by sense and related bodies; which
that it cannot exist without the mind is clear upon the same principles
that demonstrate the like of all other objects of sense. And perhaps,
if we inquire narrowly, we shall find we cannot even frame an
idea of pure Space exclusive of all body. This I must confess
seems impossible, as being a most abstract idea. When I excite
a motion in some part of my body, if it be free or without resistance,
I say there is Space; but if I find a resistance, then I say there
is Body; and in proportion as the resistance to motion is lesser
or greater, I say the space is more or less pure. So that when
I speak of pure or empty space, it is not to be supposed that
the word "space" stands for an idea distinct from or
conceivable without body and motion- though indeed we are apt
to think every noun substantive stands for a distinct idea that
may be separated from all others; which has occasioned infinite
mistakes. When, therefore, supposing all the world to be annihilated
besides my own body, I say there still remains pure Space, thereby
nothing else is meant but only that I conceive it possible for
the limbs of my body to be moved on all sides without the least
resistance, but if that, too, were annihilated then there could
be no motion, and consequently no Space. Some, perhaps, may think
the sense of seeing doth furnish them with the idea of pure space;
but it is plain from what we have elsewhere shewn, that the ideas
of space and distance are not obtained by that sense. See the
Essay concerning Vision. 117. What is here laid down seems to
put an end to all those disputes and difficulties that have sprung
up amongst the learned concerning the nature of pure Space. But
the chief advantage arising from it is that we are freed from
that dangerous dilemma, to which several who have employed their
thoughts on that subject imagine themselves reduced, to wit, of
thinking either that Real Space is God, or else that there is
something beside God which is eternal, uncreated, infinite, indivisible,
immutable. Both which may justly be thought pernicious and absurd
notions. It is certain that not a few divines, as well as philosophers
of great note, have, from the difficulty they found in conceiving
either limits or annihilation of space, concluded it must be divine.
And some of late have set themselves particularly to shew the
incommunicable attributes of God agree to it. Which doctrine,
how unworthy soever it may seem of the Divine Nature, yet I do
not see how we can get clear of it, so long as we adhere to the
received opinions. 118. Hitherto of Natural Philosophy: we come
now to make some inquiry concerning that other great branch of
speculative knowledge, to wit, Mathematics. These, how celebrated
soever they may be for their clearness and certainty of demonstration,
which is hardly anywhere else to be found, cannot nevertheless
be supposed altogether free from mistakes, if in their principles
there lurks some secret error which is common to the professors
of those sciences with the rest of mankind. Mathematicians, though
they deduce their theorems from a great height of evidence, yet
their first principles are limited by the consideration of quantity:
and they do not ascend into any inquiry concerning those transcendental
maxims which influence all the particular sciences, each part
whereof, Mathematics not excepted, does consequently participate
of the errors involved in them. That the principles laid down
by mathematicians are true, and their way of deduction from those
principles clear and incontestible, we do not deny; but, we hold
there may be certain erroneous maxims of greater extent than the
object of Mathematics, and for that reason not expressly mentioned,
though tacitly supposed throughout the whole progress of that
science; and that the ill effects of those secret unexamined errors
are diffused through all the branches thereof. To be plain, we
suspect the mathematicians are as well as other men concerned
in the errors arising from the doctrine of abstract general ideas,
and the existence of objects without the mind. 119. Arithmetic
has been thought to have for its object abstract ideas of Number;
of which to understand the properties and mutual habitudes, is
supposed no mean part of speculative knowledge. The opinion of
the pure and intellectual nature of numbers in abstract has made
them in esteem with those philosophers who seem to have affected
an uncommon fineness and elevation of thought. It hath set a price
on the most trifling numerical speculations which in practice
are of no use, but serve only for amusement; and hath therefore
so far infected the minds of some, that they have dreamed of mighty
mysteries involved in numbers, and attempted the explication of
natural things by them. But, if we inquire into our own thoughts,
and consider what has been premised, we may perhaps entertain
a low opinion of those high flights and abstractions, and look
on all inquiries, about numbers only as so many difficiles nugae,
so far as they are not subservient to practice, and promote the
benefit of life. 120. Unity in abstract we have before considered
in sect. 13, from which and what has been said in the Introduction,
it plainly follows there is not any such idea. But, number being
defined a "collection of units," we may conclude that,
if there be no such thing as unity or unit in abstract, there
are no ideas of number in abstract denoted by the numeral names
and figures. The theories therefore in Arithmetic. if they are
abstracted from the names and figures, as likewise from all use
and practice, as well as from the particular things numbered,
can be supposed to have nothing at all for their object; hence
we may see how entirely the science of numbers is subordinate
to practice, and how jejune and trifling it becomes when considered
as a matter of mere speculation. 121. However, since there may
be some who, deluded by the specious show of discovering abstracted
verities, waste their time in arithmetical theorems and problems
which have not any use, it will not be amiss if we more fully
consider and expose the vanity of that pretence; and this will
plainly appear by taking a view of Arithmetic in its infancy,
and observing what it was that originally put men on the study
of that science, and to what scope they directed it. It is natural
to think that at first, men, for ease of memory and help of computation,
made use of counters, or in writing of single strokes, points,
or the like, each whereof was made to signify an unit, i.e., some
one thing of whatever kind they had occasion to reckon. Afterwards
they found out the more compendious ways of making one character
stand in place of several strokes or points. And, lastly, the
notation of the Arabians or Indians came into use, wherein, by
the repetition of a few characters or figures, and varying the
signification of each figure according to the place it obtains,
all numbers may be most aptly expressed; which seems to have been
done in imitation of language, so that an exact analogy is observed
betwixt the notation by figures and names, the nine simple figures
answering the nine first numeral names and places in the former,
corresponding to denominations in the latter. And agreeably to
those conditions of the simple and local value of figures, were
contrived methods of finding, from the given figures or marks
of the parts, what figures and how placed are proper to denote
the whole, or vice versa. And having found the sought figures,
the same rule or analogy being observed throughout, it is easy
to read them into words; and so the number becomes perfectly known.
For then the number of any particular things is said to be known,
when we know the name of figures (with their due arrangement)
that according to the standing analogy belong to them. For, these
signs being known, we can by the operations of arithmetic know
the signs of any part of the particular sums signified by them;
and, thus computing in signs (because of the connexion established
betwixt them and the distinct multitudes of things whereof one
is taken for an unit), we may be able rightly to sum up, divide,
and proportion the things themselves that we intend to number.
122. In Arithmetic, therefore, we regard not the things, but the
signs, which nevertheless are not regarded for their own sake,
but because they direct us how to act with relation to things,
and dispose rightly of them. Now, agreeably to what we have before
observed of words in general (sect. 19, Introd.) it happens here
likewise that abstract ideas are thought to be signified by numeral
names or characters, while they do not suggest ideas of particular
things to our minds. I shall not at present enter into a more
particular dissertation on this subject, but only observe that
it is evident from what has been said, those things which pass
for abstract truths and theorems concerning numbers, are in reality
conversant about no object distinct from particular numeral things,
except only names and characters, which originally came to be
considered on no other account but their being signs, or capable
to represent aptly whatever particular things men had need to
compute. Whence it follows that to study them for their own sake
would be just as wise, and to as good purpose as if a man, neglecting
the true use or original intention and subserviency of language,
should spend his time in impertinent criticisms upon words, or
reasonings and controversies purely verbal. 123. From numbers
we proceed to speak of Extension, which, considered as relative,
is the object of Geometry. The infinite divisibility of finite
extension, though it is not expressly laid down either as an axiom
or theorem in the elements of that science, yet is throughout
the same everywhere supposed and thought to have so inseparable
and essential a connexion with the principles and demonstrations
in Geometry, that mathematicians never admit it into doubt, or
make the least question of it. And, as this notion is the source
from whence do spring all those amusing geometrical paradoxes
which have such a direct repugnancy to the plain common sense
of mankind, and are admitted with so much reluctance into a mind
not yet debauched by learning; so it is the principal occasion
of all that nice and extreme subtilty which renders the study
of Mathematics so difficult and tedious. Hence, if we can make
it appear that no finite extension contains innumerable parts,
or is infinitely divisible, it follows that we shall at once clear
the science of Geometry from a great number of difficulties and
contradictions which have ever been esteemed a reproach to human
reason, and withal make the attainment thereof a business of much
less time and pains than it hitherto has been. 124. Every particular
finite extension which may possibly be the object of our thought
is an idea existing only in the mind, and consequently each part
thereof must be perceived. If, therefore, I cannot perceive innumerable
parts in any finite extension that I consider, it is certain they
are not contained in it; but, it is evident that I cannot distinguish
innumerable parts in any particular line, surface, or solid, which
I either perceive by sense, or figure to myself in my mind: wherefore
I conclude they are not contained in it. Nothing can be plainer
to me than that the extensions I have in view are no other than
my own ideas; and it is no less plain that I cannot resolve any
one of my ideas into an infinite number of other ideas, that is,
that they are not infinitely divisible. If by finite extension
be meant something distinct from a finite idea, I declare I do
not know what that is, and so cannot affirm or deny anything of
it. But if the terms "extension," "parts,"
&c., are taken in any sense conceivable, that is, for ideas,
then to say a finite quantity or extension consists of parts infinite
in number is so manifest a contradiction, that every one at first
sight acknowledges it to be so; and it is impossible it should
ever gain the assent of any reasonable creature who is not brought
to it by gentle and slow degrees, as a converted Gentile to the
belief of transubstantiation. Ancient and rooted prejudices do
often pass into principles; and those propositions which once
obtain the force and credit of a principle, are not only themselves,
but likewise whatever is deducible from them, thought privileged
from all examination. And there is no absurdity so gross, which,
by this means, the mind of man may not be prepared to swallow.
125. He whose understanding is possessed with the doctrine of
abstract general ideas may be persuaded that (whatever be thought
of the ideas of sense) extension in abstract is infinitely divisible.
And one who thinks the objects of sense exist without the mind
will perhaps in virtue thereof be brought to admit that a line
but an inch long may contain innumerable parts- really existing,
though too small to be discerned. These errors are grafted as
well in the minds of geometricians as of other men, and have a
like influence on their reasonings; and it were no difficult thing
to shew how the arguments from Geometry made use of to support
the infinite divisibility of extension are bottomed on them. At
present we shall only observe in general whence it is the mathematicians
are all so fond and tenacious of that doctrine. 126. It hath been
observed in another place that the theorems and demonstrations
in Geometry are conversant about universal ideas (sect. 15, Introd.);
where it is explained in what sense this ought to be understood,
to wit, the particular lines and figures included in the diagram
are supposed to stand for innumerable others of different sizes;
or, in other words, the geometer considers them abstracting from
their magnitude- which does not imply that he forms an abstract
idea, but only that he cares not what the particular magnitude
is, whether great or small, but looks on that as a thing different
to the demonstration. Hence it follows that a line in the scheme
but an inch long must be spoken of as though it contained ten
thousand parts, since it is regarded not in itself, but as it
is universal; and it is universal only in its signification, whereby
it represents innumerable lines greater than itself, in which
may be distinguished ten thousand parts or more, though there
may not be above an inch in it. After this manner, the properties
of the lines signified are (by a very usual figure) transferred
to the sign, and thence, through mistake, though to appertain
to it considered in its own nature. 127. Because there is no number
of parts so great but it is possible there may be a line containing
more, the inch-line is said to contain parts more than any assignable
number; which is true, not of the inch taken absolutely, but only
for the things signified by it. But men, not retaining that distinction
in their thoughts, slide into a belief that the small particular
line described on paper contains in itself parts innumerable.
There is no such thing as the ten-thousandth part of an inch;
but there is of a mile or diameter of the earth, which may be
signified by that inch. When therefore I delineate a triangle
on paper, and take one side not above an inch, for example, in
length to be the radius, this I consider as divided into 10,000
or 100,000 parts or more; for, though the ten-thousandth part
of that line considered in itself is nothing at all, and consequently
may be neglected without an error or inconveniency, yet these
described lines, being only marks standing for greater quantities,
whereof it may be the ten-thousandth part is very considerable,
it follows that, to prevent notable errors in practice, the radius
must be taken of 10,000 parts or more. 128. From what has been
said the reason is plain why, to the end any theorem become universal
in its use, it is necessary we speak of the lines described on
paper as though they contained parts which really they do not.
In doing of which, if we examine the matter thoroughly, we shall
perhaps discover that we cannot conceive an inch itself as consisting
of, or being divisible into, a thousand parts, but only some other
line which is far greater than an inch, and represented by it;
and that when we say a line is infinitely divisible, we must mean
a line which is infinitely great. What we have here observed seems
to be the chief cause why, to suppose the infinite divisibility
of finite extension has been thought necessary in geometry. 129.
The several absurdities and contradictions which flowed from this
false principle might, one would think, have been esteemed so
many demonstrations against it. But, by I know not what logic,
it is held that proofs a posteriori are not to be admitted against
propositions relating to infinity, as though it were not impossible
even for an infinite mind to reconcile contradictions; or as if
anything absurd and repugnant could have a necessary connexion
with truth or flow from it. But, whoever considers the weakness
of this pretence will think it was contrived on purpose to humour
the laziness of the mind which had rather acquiesce in an indolent
scepticism than be at the pains to go through with a severe examination
of those principles it has ever embraced for true. 130. Of late
the speculations about Infinities have run so high, and grown
to such strange notions, as have occasioned no small scruples
and disputes among the geometers of the present age. Some there
are of great note who, not content with holding that finite lines
may be divided into an infinite number of parts, do yet farther
maintain that each of those infinitesimals is itself subdivisible
into an infinity of other parts or infinitesimals of a second
order, and so on ad infinitum. These, I say, assert there are
infinitesimals of infinitesimals of infinitesimals, &c., without
ever coming to an end; so that according to them an inch does
not barely contain an infinite number of parts, but an infinity
of an infinity of an infinity ad infinitum of parts. Others there
be who hold all orders of infinitesimals below the first to be
nothing at all; thinking it with good reason absurd to imagine
there is any positive quantity or part of extension which, though
multiplied infinitely, can never equal the smallest given extension.
And yet on the other hand it seems no less absurd to think the
square, cube or other power of a positive real root, should itself
be nothing at all; which they who hold infinitesimals of the first
order, denying all of the subsequent orders, are obliged to maintain.
131. Have we not therefore reason to conclude they are both in
the wrong, and that there is in effect no such thing as parts
infinitely small, or an infinite number of parts contained in
any finite quantity? But you will say that if this doctrine obtains
it will follow the very foundations of Geometry are destroyed,
and those great men who have raised that science to so astonishing
a height, have been all the while building a castle in the air.
To this it may be replied that whatever is useful in geometry,
and promotes the benefit of human life, does still remain firm
and unshaken on our principles; that science considered as practical
will rather receive advantage than any prejudice from what has
been said. But to set this in a due light may be the proper business
of another place. For the rest, though it should follow that some
of the more intricate and subtle parts of Speculative Mathematics
may be pared off without any prejudice to truth, yet I do not
see what damage will be thence derived to mankind. On the contrary,
I think it were highly to be wished that men of great abilities
and obstinate application would draw off their thoughts from those
amusements, and employ them in the study of such things as lie
nearer the concerns of life, or have a more direct influence on
the manners. 132. It is be said that several theorems undoubtedly
true are discovered by methods in which infinitesimals are made
use of, which could never have been if their existence included
a contradiction in it; I answer that upon a thorough examination
it will not be found that in any instance it is necessary to make
use of or conceive infinitesimal parts of finite lines, or even
quantities less than the minimum sensible; nay, it will be evident
this is never done, it being impossible. 133. By what we have
premised, it is plain that very numerous and important errors
have taken their rise from those false Principles which were impugned
in the foregoing parts of this treatise; and the opposites of
those erroneous tenets at the same time appear to be most fruitful
Principles, from whence do flow innumerable consequences highly
advantageous to true philosophy. as well as to religion. Particularly
Matter, or the absolute existence of corporeal objects, hath been
shewn to be that wherein the most avowed and pernicious enemies
of all knowledge, whether human or divine, have ever placed their
chief strength and confidence. And surely, if by distinguishing
the real existence of unthinking things from their being perceived,
and allowing them a subsistance of their own out of the minds
of spirits, no one thing is explained in nature, but on the contrary
a great many inexplicable difficulties arise; if the supposition
of Matter is barely precarious, as not being grounded on so much
as one single reason; if its consequences cannot endure the light
of examination and free inquiry, but screen themselves under the
dark and general pretence of "infinites being incomprehensible";
if withal the removal of this Matter be not attended with the
least evil consequence; if it be not even missed in the world,
but everything as well, nay much easier conceived without it;
if, lastly, both Sceptics and Atheists are for ever silenced upon
supposing only spirits and ideas, and this scheme of things is
perfectly agreeable both to Reason and Religion: methinks we may
expect it should be admitted and firmly embraced, though it were
proposed only as an hypothesis, and the existence of Matter had
been allowed possible, which yet I think we have evidently demonstrated
that it is not. 134. True it is that, in consequence of the foregoing
principles, several disputes and speculations which are esteemed
no mean parts of learning, are rejected as useless. But, how great
a prejudice soever against our notions this may give to those
who have already been deeply engaged, and make large advances
in studies of that nature, yet by others we hope it will not be
thought any just ground of dislike to the principles and tenets
herein laid down, that they abridge the labour of study, and make
human sciences far more clear, compendious and attainable than
they were before. 135. Having despatched what we intended to say
concerning the knowledge of IDEAS, the method we proposed leads
us in the next place to treat of SPIRITS- with regard to which,
perhaps, human knowledge is not so deficient as is vulgarly imagined.
The great reason that is assigned for our being thought ignorant
of the nature of spirits is our not having an idea of it. But,
surely it ought not to be looked on as a defect in a human understanding
that it does not perceive the idea of spirit, if it is manifestly
impossible there should be any such idea. And this if I mistake
not has been demonstrated in section 27; to which I shall here
add that a spirit has been shewn to be the only substance or support
wherein unthinking beings or ideas can exist; but that this substance
which supports or perceives ideas should itself be an idea or
like an idea is evidently absurd. 136. It will perhaps be said
that we want a sense (as some have imagined) proper to know substances
withal, which, if we had, we might know our own soul as we do
a triangle. To this I answer, that, in case we had a new sense
bestowed upon us, we could only receive thereby some new sensations
or ideas of sense. But I believe nobody will say that what he
means by the terms soul and substance is only some particular
sort of idea or sensation. We may therefore infer that, all things
duly considered, it is not more reasonable to think our faculties
defective, in that they do not furnish us with an idea of spirit
or active thinking substance, than it would be if we should blame
them for not being able to comprehend a round square. 137. From
the opinion that spirits are to be known after the manner of an
idea or sensation have risen many absurd and heterodox tenets,
and much scepticism about the nature of the soul. It is even probable
that this opinion may have produced a doubt in some whether they
had any soul at all distinct from their body since upon inquiry
they could not find they had an idea of it. That an idea which
is inactive, and the existence whereof consists in being perceived,
should be the image or likeness of an agent subsisting by itself,
seems to need no other refutation than barely attending to what
is meant by those words. But, perhaps you will say that though
an idea cannot resemble a spirit in its thinking, acting, or subsisting
by itself, yet it may in some other respects; and it is not necessary
that an idea or image be in all respects like the original. 138.
I answer, if it does not in those mentioned, it is impossible
it should represent it in any other thing. Do but leave out the
power of willing, thinking, and perceiving ideas, and there remains
nothing else wherein the idea can be like a spirit. For, by the
word spirit we mean only that which thinks, wills, and perceives;
this, and this alone, constitutes the signification of the term.
If therefore it is impossible that any degree of those powers
should be represented in an idea, it is evident there can be no
idea of a spirit. 139. But it will be objected that, if there
is no idea signified by the terms soul, spirit, and substance,
they are wholly insignificant, or have no meaning in them. I answer,
those words do mean or signify a real thing, which is neither
an idea nor like an idea, but that which perceives ideas, and
wills, and reasons about them. What I am myself, that which I
denote by the term I, is the same with what is meant by soul or
spiritual substance. If it be said that this is only quarreling
at a word, and that, since the immediately significations of other
names are by common consent called ideas, no reason can be assigned
why that which is signified by the name spirit or soul may not
partake in the same appellation. I answer, all the unthinking
objects of the mind agree in that they are entirely passive, and
their existence consists only in being perceived; whereas a soul
or spirit is an active being, whose existence consists, not in
being perceived, but in perceiving ideas and thinking. It is therefore
necessary, in order to prevent equivocation and confounding natures
perfectly disagreeing and unlike, that we distinguish between
spirit and idea. See sect. 27. 140. In a large sense, indeed,
we may be said to have an idea or rather a notion of spirit; that
is, we understand the meaning of the word, otherwise we could
not affirm or deny anything of it. Moreover, as we conceive the
ideas that are in the minds of other spirits by means of our own,
which we suppose to be resemblances of them; so we know other
spirits by means of our own soul- which in that sense is the image
or idea of them; it having a like respect to other spirits that
blueness or heat by me perceived has to those ideas perceived
by another. 141. It must not be supposed that they who assert
the natural immortality of the soul are of opinion that it is
absolutely incapable of annihilation even by the infinite power
of the Creator who first gave it being, but only that it is not
liable to be broken or dissolved by the ordinary laws of nature
or motion. They indeed who hold the soul of man to be only a thin
vital flame, or system of animal spirits, make it perishing and
corruptible as the body; since there is nothing more easily dissipated
than such a being, which it is naturally impossible should survive
the ruin of the tabernacle wherein it is enclosed. And this notion
has been greedily embraced and cherished by the worst part of
mankind, as the most effectual antidote against all impressions
of virtue and religion. But it has been made evident that bodies,
of what frame or texture soever, are barely passive ideas in the
mind, which is more distant and heterogeneous from them than light
is from darkness. We have shewn that the soul is indivisible,
incorporeal, unextended, and it is consequently incorruptible.
Nothing can be plainer than that the motions, changes, decays,
and dissolutions which we hourly see befall natural bodies (and
which is what we mean by the course of nature) cannot possibly
affect an active, simple, uncompounded substance; such a being
therefore is indissoluble by the force of nature; that is to say,
"the soul of man is naturally immortal." 142. After
what has been said, it is, I suppose, plain that our souls are
not to be known in the same manner as senseless, inactive objects,
or by way of idea. Spirits and ideas are things so wholly different,
that when we say "they exist," "they are known,"
or the like, these words must not be thought to signify anything
common to both natures. There is nothing alike or common in them:
and to expect that by any multiplication or enlargement of our
faculties we may be enabled to know a spirit as we do a triangle,
seems as absurd as if we should hope to see a sound. This is inculcated
because I imagine it may be of moment towards clearing several
important questions, and preventing some very dangerous errors
concerning the nature of the soul. We may not, I think, strictly
be said to have an idea of an active being, or of an action, although
we may be said to have a notion of them. I have some knowledge
or notion of my mind, and its acts about ideas, inasmuch as I
know or understand what is meant by these words. What I know,
that I have some notion of. I will not say that the terms idea
and notion may not be used convertibly, if the world will have
it so; but yet it conduceth to clearness and propriety that we
distinguish things very different by different names. It is also
to be remarked that, all relations including an act of the mind,
we cannot so properly be said to have an idea, but rather a notion
of the relations and habitudes between things. But if, in the
modern way, the word idea is extended to spirits, and relations,
and acts, this is, after all, an affair of verbal concern. 143.
It will not be amiss to add, that the doctrine of abstract ideas
has had no small share in rendering those sciences intricate and
obscure which are particularly conversant about spiritual things.
Men have imagined they could frame abstract notions of the powers
and acts of the mind, and consider them prescinded as well from
the mind or spirit itself, as from their respective objects and
effects. Hence a great number of dark and ambiguous terms, presumed
to stand for abstract notions, have been introduced into metaphysics
and morality, and from these have grown infinite distractions
and disputes amongst the learned. 144. But, nothing seems more
to have contributed towards engaging men in controversies and
mistakes with regard to the nature and operations of the mind,
than the being used to speak of those things in terms borrowed
from sensible ideas. For example, the will is termed the motion
of the soul; this infuses a belief that the mind of man is as
a ball in motion, impelled and determined by the objects of sense,
as necessarily as that is by the stroke of a racket. Hence arise
endless scruples and errors of dangerous consequence in morality.
All which, I doubt not, may be cleared, and truth appear plain,
uniform, and consistent, could but philosophers be prevailed on
to retire into themselves, and attentively consider their own
meaning. 145. From what has been said, it is plain that we cannot
know the existence of other spirits otherwise than by their operations,
or the ideas by them excited in us. I perceive several motions,
changes, and combinations of ideas, that inform me there are certain
particular agents, like myself, which accompany them and concur
in their production. Hence, the knowledge I have of other spirits
is not immediate, as is the knowledge of my ideas; but depending
on the intervention of ideas, by me referred to agents or spirits
distinct from myself, as effects or concomitant signs. 146. But,
though there be some things which convince us human agents are
concerned in producing them; yet it is evident to every one that
those things which are called the Works of Nature, that is, the
far greater part of the ideas or sensations perceived by us, are
not produced by, or dependent on, the wills of men. There is therefore
some other Spirit that causes them; since it is repugnant that
they should subsist by themselves. See sect. 29. But, if we attentively
consider the constant regularity, order, and concatenation of
natural things, the surprising magnificence, beauty, and perfection
of the larger, and the exquisite contrivance of the smaller parts
of creation, together with the exact harmony and correspondence
of the whole, but above all the never-enough-admired laws of pain
and pleasure, and the instincts or natural inclinations, appetites,
and passions of animals; I say if we consider all these things,
and at the same time attend to the meaning and import of the attributes
One, Eternal, Infinitely Wise, Good, and Perfect, we shall clearly
perceive that they belong to the aforesaid Spirit, "who works
all in all," and "by whom all things consist."
147. Hence, it is evident that God is known as certainly and immediately
as any other mind or spirit whatsoever distinct from ourselves.
We may even assert that the existence of God is far more evidently
perceived than the existence of men; because the effects of nature
are infinitely more numerous and considerable than those ascribed
to human agents. There is not any one mark that denotes a man,
or effect produced by him, which does not more strongly evince
the being of that Spirit who is the Author of Nature. For, it
is evident that in affecting other persons the will of man has
no other object than barely the motion of the limbs of his body;
but that such a motion should be attended by, or excite any idea
in the mind of another, depends wholly on the will of the Creator.
He alone it is who, "upholding all things by the word of
His power," maintains that intercourse between spirits whereby
they are able to perceive the existence of each other. And yet
this pure and clear light which enlightens every one is itself
invisible. 148. It seems to be a general pretence of the unthinking
herd that they cannot see God. Could we but see Him, say they,
as we see a man, we should believe that He is, and believing obey
His commands. But alas, we need only open our eyes to see the
Sovereign Lord of all things, with a more full and clear view
than we do any one of our fellow-creatures. Not that I imagine
we see God (as some will have it) by a direct and immediate view;
or see corporeal things, not by themselves, but by seeing that
which represents them in the essence of God, which doctrine is,
I must confess, to me incomprehensible. But I shall explain my
meaning;- A human spirit or person is not perceived by sense,
as not being an idea; when therefore we see the colour, size,
figure, and motions of a man, we perceive only certain sensations
or ideas excited in our own minds; and these being exhibited to
our view in sundry distinct collections, serve to mark out unto
us the existence of finite and created spirits like ourselves.
Hence it is plain we do not see a man- if by man is meant that
which lives, moves, perceives, and thinks as we do- but only such
a certain collection of ideas as directs us to think there is
a distinct principle of thought and motion, like to ourselves,
accompanying and represented by it. And after the same manner
we see God; all the difference is that, whereas some one finite
and narrow assemblage of ideas denotes a particular human mind,
whithersoever we direct our view, we do at all times and in all
places perceive manifest tokens of the Divinity: everything we
see, hear, feel, or anywise perceive by sense, being a sign or
effect of the power of God; as is our perception of those very
motions which are produced by men. 149. It is therefore plain
that nothing can be more evident to any one that is capable of
the least reflexion than the existence of God, or a Spirit who
is intimately present to our minds, producing in them all that
variety of ideas or sensations which continually affect us, on
whom we have an absolute and entire dependence, in short "in
whom we live, and move, and have our being." That the discovery
of this great truth, which lies so near and obvious to the mind,
should be attained to by the reason of so very few, is a sad instance
of the stupidity and inattention of men, who, though they are
surrounded with such clear manifestations of the Deity, are yet
so little affected by them that they seem, as it were, blinded
with excess of light. 150. But you will say, Hath Nature no share
in the production of natural things, and must they be all ascribed
to the immediate and sole operation of God? I answer, if by Nature
is meant only the visible series of effects or sensations imprinted
on our minds, according to certain fixed and general laws, then
it is plain that Nature, taken in this sense, cannot produce anything
at all. But, if by Nature is meant some being distinct from God,
as well as from the laws of nature, and things perceived by sense,
I must confess that word is to me an empty sound without any intelligible
meaning annexed to it. Nature, in this acceptation, is a vain
chimera, introduced by those heathens who had not just notions
of the omnipresence and infinite perfection of God. But, it is
more unaccountable that it should be received among Christians,
professing belief in the Holy Scriptures, which constantly ascribe
those effects to the immediate hand of God that heathen philosophers
are wont to impute to Nature. "The Lord He causeth the vapours
to ascend; He maketh lightnings with rain; He bringeth forth the
wind out of his treasures." Jerem. 10. 13. "He turneth
the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark
with night." Amos, 5. 8. "He visiteth the earth, and
maketh it soft with showers: He blesseth the springing thereof,
and crowneth the year with His goodness; so that the pastures
are clothed with flocks, and the valleys are covered over with
corn." See Psalm 65. But, notwithstanding that this is the
constant language of Scripture, yet we have I know not what aversion
from believing that God concerns Himself so nearly in our affairs.
Fain would we suppose Him at a great distance off, and substitute
some blind unthinking deputy in His stead, though (if we may believe
Saint Paul) "He be not far from every one of us." 151.
It will, I doubt not, be objected that the slow and gradual methods
observed in the production of natural things do not seem to have
for their cause the immediate hand of an Almighty Agent. Besides,
monsters, untimely births, fruits blasted in the blossom, rains
falling in desert places, miseries incident to human life, and
the like, are so many arguments that the whole frame of nature
is not immediately actuated and superintended by a Spirit of infinite
wisdom and goodness. But the answer to this objection is in a
good measure plain from sect. 62; it being visible that the aforesaid
methods of nature are absolutely necessary, in order to working
by the most simple and general rules, and after a steady and consistent
manner; which argues both the wisdom and goodness of God. Such
is the artificial contrivance of this mighty machine of nature
that, whilst its motions and various phenomena strike on our senses,
the hand which actuates the whole is itself unperceivable to men
of flesh and blood. "Verily" (saith the prophet) "thou
art a God that hidest thyself." Isaiah, 45. 15. But, though
the Lord conceal Himself from the eyes of the sensual and lazy,
who will not be at the least expense of thought, yet to an unbiased
and attentive mind nothing can be more plainly legible than the
intimate presence of an All-wise Spirit, who fashions, regulates
and sustains the whole system of beings. It is clear, from what
we have elsewhere observed, that the operating according to general
and stated laws is so necessary for our guidance in the affairs
of life, and letting us into the secret of nature, that without
it all reach and compass of thought, all human sagacity and design,
could serve to no manner of purpose; it were even impossible there
should be any such faculties or powers in the mind. See sect.
31. Which one consideration abundantly outbalances whatever particular
inconveniences may thence arise. 152. We should further consider
that the very blemishes and defects of nature are not without
their use, in that they make an agreeable sort of variety, and
augment the beauty of the rest of the creation, as shades in a
picture serve to set off the brighter and more enlightened parts.
We would likewise do well to examine whether our taxing the waste
of seeds and embryos, and accidental destruction of plants and
animals, before they come to full maturity, as an imprudence in
the Author of nature, be not the effect of prejudice contracted
by our familiarity with impotent and saving mortals. In man indeed
a thrifty management of those things which he cannot procure without
much pains and industry may be esteemed wisdom. But, we must not
imagine that the inexplicably fine machine of an animal or vegetable
costs the great Creator any more pains or trouble in its production
than a pebble does; nothing being more evident than that an Omnipotent
Spirit can indifferently produce everything by a mere fiat or
act of His will. Hence, it is plain that the splendid profusion
of natural things should not be interpreted weakness or prodigality
in the agent who produces them, but rather be looked on as an
argument of the riches of His power. 153. As for the mixture of
pain or uneasiness which is in the world, pursuant to the general
laws of nature, and the actions of finite, imperfect spirits,
this, in the state we are in at present, is indispensably necessary
to our well-being. But our prospects are too narrow. We take,
for instance, the idea of some one particular pain into our thoughts,
and account it evil; whereas, if we enlarge our view, so as to
comprehend the various ends, connexions, and dependencies of things,
on what occasions and in what proportions we are affected with
pain and pleasure, the nature of human freedom, and the design
with which we are put into the world; we shall be forced to acknowledge
that those particular things which, considered in themselves,
appear to be evil, have the nature of good, when considered as
linked with the whole system of beings. 154. From what has been
said, it will be manifest to any considering person, that it is
merely for want of attention and comprehensiveness of mind that
there are any favourers of Atheism or the Manichean Heresy to
be found. Little and unreflecting souls may indeed burlesque the
works of Providence, the beauty and order whereof they have not
capacity, or will not be at the pains, to comprehend; but those
who are masters of any justness and extent of thought, and are
withal used to reflect, can never sufficiently admire the divine
traces of Wisdom and Goodness that shine throughout the Economy
of Nature. But what truth is there which shineth so strongly on
the mind that by an aversion of thought, a wilful shutting of
the eyes, we may not escape seeing it? Is it therefore to be wondered
at, if the generality of men, who are ever intent on business
or pleasure, and little used to fix or open the eye of their mind,
should not have all that conviction and evidence of the Being
of God which might be expected in reasonable creatures? 155. We
should rather wonder that men can be found so stupid as to neglect,
than that neglecting they should be unconvinced of such an evident
and momentous truth. And yet it is to be feared that too many
of parts and leisure, who live in Christian countries, are, merely
through a supine and dreadful negligence, sunk into Atheism. Since
it is downright impossible that a soul pierced and enlightened
with a thorough sense of the omnipresence, holiness, and justice
of that Almighty Spirit should persist in a remorseless violation
of His laws. We ought, therefore, earnestly to meditate and dwell
on those important points; that so we may attain conviction without
all scruple "that the eyes of the Lord are in every place
beholding the evil and the good; that He is with us and keepeth
us in all places whither we go, and giveth us bread to eat and
raiment to put on"; that He is present and conscious to our
innermost thoughts; and that we have a most absolute and immediate
dependence on Him. A clear view of which great truths cannot choose
but fill our hearts with an awful circumspection and holy fear,
which is the strongest incentive to Virtue, and the best guard
against Vice. 156. For, after all, what deserves the first place
in our studies is the consideration of GOD and our DUTY; which
to promote, as it was the main drift and design of my labours,
so shall I esteem them altogether useless and ineffectual if,
by what I have said, I cannot inspire my readers with a pious
sense of the Presence of God; and, having shewn the falseness
or vanity of those barren speculations which make the chief employment
of learned men, the better dispose them to reverence and embrace
the salutary truths of the Gospel, which to know and to practice
is the highest perfection of human nature. THE END . .