THERE is nothing I wou'd more willingly lay hold of, than an op∣portunity of confessing my errors; and shou'd esteem such a return to truth and reason to be more honourable than the most unerring judgment. A man, who is free from mistakes, can pretend to no praises, ex∣cept from the justness of his understanding: But a man, who corrects his mistakes, shews at once the justness of his understanding, and the candour and ingenuity of his temper. I have not yet been so fortunate as to dis∣cover any very considerable mistakes in the reasonings deliver'd in the preceding volumes, except on one article: But I have found by experience, that some of my expressions have not been so well chosen, as to guard against all mistakes in the readers; and 'tis chiefly to remedy this defect, I have subjoin'd the following appendix.
Page 284 WE can never be induc'd to believe any matter of fact, except where its cause, or its effect, is present to us; but what the na∣ture is of that belief, which arises from the relation of cause and effect, few have had the curiosity to ask themselves. In my opinion, this dilemma is inevitable. Either the belief is some new idea, such as that of reality or existence, which we join to the simple conception of an object, or it is merely a peculiar feeling or sentiment. That it is not a new idea, annex'd to the simple con∣ception, may be evinc'd from these two ar∣guments. First, We have no abstract idea of existence, distinguishable and separable from the idea of particular objects. 'Tis impossible, therefore, that this idea of ex∣istence can be annex'd to the idea of any object, or form the difference betwixt a sim∣ple conception and belief. Secondly, The mind has the command over all its ideas, and can separate, unite, mix, and vary them, as it pleases; so that if belief consisted merely in a new idea, annex'd to the conception, it wou'd be in a man's power to believe what he pleas'd. We may, therefore, conclude, that belief consists merely in a certain feel∣ing or sentiment; in something, that de∣pends Page 285 not on the will, but must arise from certain determinate causes and principles, of which we are not masters. When we are convinc'd of any matter of fact, we do no∣thing but conceive it, along with a certain feeling, different from what attends the mere reveries of the imagination. And when we express our incredulity concerning any fact, we mean, that the arguments for the fact produce not that feeling. Did not the belief consist in a sentiment different from our mere conception, whatever objects were pre∣sented by the wildest imagination, wou'd be on an equal footing with the most establish'd truths founded on history and experience. There is nothing but the feeling, or sen∣timent, to distinguish the one from the other.
THIS, therefore, being regarded as an undoubted truth, that belief is nothing but a peculiar feeling, different from the simple con∣ception, the next question, that naturally oc∣curs, is, what is the nature of this feeling, or sentiment, and whether it be analogous to any other sentiment of the human mind? This question is important. For if it be not ana∣logous to any other sentiment, we must de∣spair of explaining its causes, and must con∣sider it as an original principle of the human Page 286 mind. If it be analogous, we may hope to explain its causes from analogy, and trace it up to more general principles. Now that there is a greater firmness and solidity in the conceptions, which are the objects of con∣viction and assurance, than in the loose and indolent reveries of a castle-builder, every one will readily own. They strike upon us with more force; they are more present to us; the mind has a firmer hold of them, and is more actuated and mov'd by them. It acquiesces in them; and, in a manner, fixes and reposes itself on them. In short, they approach nearer to the impressions, which are immediately present to us; and are therefore analogous to many other opera∣tions of the mind.
THERE is not, in my opinion, any possi∣bility of evading this conclusion, but by asserting, that belief, beside the simple con∣ception, consists in some impression or feel∣ing, distinguishable from the conception. It does not modify the conception, and render it more present and intense: It is only an∣nex'd to it, after the same manner that will and desire are annex'd to particular con∣ceptions of good and pleasure. But the fol∣lowing considerations will, I hope, be suffi∣cient to remove this hypothesis. First, It is Page 287 directly contrary to experience, and our im∣mediate consciousness. All men have ever allow'd reasoning to be merely an operation of our thoughts or ideas; and however those ideas may be varied to the feeling, there is nothing ever enters into our conclusions but ideas, or our fainter conceptions. For in∣stance; I hear at present a person's voice, whom I am acquainted with; and this sound comes from the next room. This impression of my senses immediately conveys my thoughts to the person, along with all the surrounding objects. I paint them out to myself as existent at present, with the same qualities and relations, that I formerly knew them possess'd of. These ideas take faster hold of my mind, than the ideas of an in∣chanted castle. They are different to the feeling; but there is no distinct or separate impression attending them. 'Tis the same case when I recollect the several incidents of a journey, or the events of any history. Every particular fact is there the object of belief. Its idea is modified differently from the loose reveries of a castle-builder: But no distinct impression attends every distinct idea, or conception of matter of fact. This is the subject of plain experience. If ever this experience can be disputed on any oc∣casion, Page 288 'tis when the mind has been agitated with doubts and difficulties; and afterwards, upon taking the object in a new point of view, or being presented with a new argu∣ment, fixes and reposes itself in one settled conclusion and belief. In this case there is a feeling distinct and separate from the con∣ception. The passage from doubt and agi∣tation to tranquility and repose, conveys a satisfaction and pleasure to the mind. But take any other case. Suppose I see the legs and thighs of a person in motion, while some interpos'd object conceals the rest of his body. Here 'tis certain, the imagination spreads out the whole figure. I give him a head and shoulders, and breast and neck. These members I conceive and believe him to be possess'd of. Nothing can be more evident, than that this whole operation is perform'd by the thought or imagination alone. The transition is immediate. The ideas presently strike us. Their customary connexion with the present impression, varies them and modifies them in a certain manner, but produces no act of the mind, distinct from this peculiarity of conception. Let any one examine his own mind, and he will evidently find this to be the truth.
Page 289Secondly, Whatever may be the case, with regard to this distinct impression, it must be allow'd, that the mind has a firmer hold, or more steady conception of what it takes to be matter of fact, than of fictions. Why then look any farther, or multiply suppo∣sitions without necessity?
Thirdly, We can explain the causes of the firm conception, but not those of any separate impression. And not only so, but the causes of the firm conception exhaust the whole subject, and nothing is left to produce any other effect. An inference con∣cerning a matter of fact is nothing but the idea of an object, that is frequently con∣join'd, or is associated with a present im∣pression. This is the whole of it. Every part is requisite to explain, from analogy, the more steady conception; and nothing re∣mains capable of producing any distinct im∣pression.
Fourthly, The effects of belief, in in∣fluencing the passions and imagination, can all be explain'd from the firm conception; and there is no occasion to have recourse to any other principle. These arguments, with many others, enumerated in the foregoing volumes, sufficiently prove, that belief only modifies the idea or conception; and renders Page 290 it different to the feeling, without producing any distinct impression.
THUS upon a general view of the sub∣ject, there appear to be two questions of importance, which we may venture to re∣commend to the consideration of philoso∣phers, Whether there be any thing to distin∣guish belief from the simple conception beside the feeling or sentiment? And, Whether this feeling be any thing but a firmer conception, or a faster hold, that we take of the object?
IF, upon impartial enquiry, the same con∣clusion, that I have form'd, be assented to by philosophers, the next business is to ex∣amine the analogy, which there is betwixt belief, and other acts of the mind, and find the cause of the firmness and strength of conception: And this I do not esteem a difficult task. The transition from a pre∣sent impression, always enlivens and strength∣ens any idea. When any object is presented, the idea of its usual attendant immediately strikes us, as something real and solid. 'Tis felt, rather than conceiv'd, and approaches the impression, from which it is deriv'd, in its force and influence. This I have prov'd at large. I cannot add any new arguments; tho' perhaps my reasoning on this whole question, concerning cause and effect, wou'd Page 291 have been more convincing, had the follow∣ing passages been inserted in the places, which I have mark'd for them. I have ad∣ded a few illustrations on other points, where I thought it necessary.
To be inserted in Vol. I. page 153. line 12. after these words (fainter and more ob∣scure.) beginning a new paragraph.
IT frequently happens, that when two men have been engag'd in any scene of ac∣tion, the one shall remember it much better than the other, and shall have all the diffi∣culty in the world to make his companion recollect it. He runs over several circum∣stances in vain; mentions the time, the place, the company, what was said, what was done on all sides; till at last he hits on some lucky circumstance, that revives the whole, and gives his friend a perfect memory of every thing. Here the person that forgets receives at first all the ideas from the dis∣course of the other, with the same circum∣stances of time and place; tho' he considers them as mere fictions of the imagination. But as soon as the circumstance is mention'd, that touches the memory, the very same ideas now appear in a new light, and have, Page 292 in a manner, a different feeling from what they had before. Without any other alter∣ation, beside that of the feeling, they become immediately ideas of the memory, and are assented to.
SINCE, therefore, the imagination can re∣present all the same objects that the memory can offer to us, and since those faculties are only distinguish'd by the different feeling of the ideas they present, it may be proper to consider what is the nature of that feeling. And here I believe every one will readily agree with me, that the ideas of the me∣mory are more strong and lively than those of the fancy. A painter, who intended, &c.
To be inserted Vol. I. page 174. line 8. after these words (according to the foregoing definition.) beginning a new paragraph.
THIS operation of the mind, which forms the belief of any matter of fact, seems hitherto to have been one of the greatest mysteries of philosophy; tho' no one has so much as suspected, that there was any diffi∣culty in explaining it. For my part I must own, that I find a considerable difficulty in the case; and that even when I think I understand the subject perfectly, I am at a Page 293 loss for terms to express my meaning. I conclude, by an induction which seems to me very evident, that an opinion or belief is nothing but an idea, that is different from a fiction, not in the nature, or the order of its parts, but in the manner of its being con∣ceiv'd. But when I wou'd explain this man∣ner, I scarce find any word that fully an∣swers the case, but am oblig'd to have re∣course to every one's feeling, in order to give him a perfect notion of this operation of the mind. An idea assented to feels different from a fictitious idea, that the fancy alone presents to us: And this different feeling I endeavour to explain by calling it a superior force, or vivacity, or solidity, or firmness, or steadiness. This variety of terms, which may seem so unphilosophical, is intended only to express that act of the mind, which renders realities more present to us than fictions, causes them to weigh more in the thought, and gives them a superior influence on the passions and imagination. Provided we agree about the thing, 'tis needless to dispute about the terms. The imagination has the com∣mand over all its ideas, and can join, and mix, and vary them in all the ways possible. It may conceive objects with all the circum∣stances of place and time. It may set them, Page 294 in a manner, before our eyes in their true colours, just as they might have existed. But as it is impossible, that that faculty can ever, of itself, reach belief, 'tis evident, that belief consists not in the nature and order of our ideas, but in the manner of their con∣ception, and in their feeling to the mind. I confess, that 'tis impossible to explain per∣fectly this feeling or manner of conception. We may make use of words, that express something near it. But its true and proper name is belief, which is a term that every one sufficiently understands in common life. And in philosophy we can go no farther, than assert, that it is something felt by the mind, which distinguishes the ideas of the judgment from the fictions of the imagina∣tion. It gives them more force and influ∣ence; makes them appear of greater im∣portance; infixes them in the mind; and renders them the governing principles of all our actions.
A note to Vol. I. page 179. line 19. after these words (immediate impression.)
Naturane nobis, inquit, datum dicam, an errore quodam, ut, cum ea loca videamus, in quibus memoria dignos viros acceperimus mul∣tumPage 295esse versatos, magis moveamur, quam siquando eorum ipsorum aut facta audiamus, aut scriptum aliquod legamus? velut ego nunc moveor. Venit enim mihi Platonis in mentem: quem accipimus primum hîc disputare solitum: Cujus etiam illi hortuli propinqui non memo∣riam solûm mihi afferunt, sed ipsum videntur in conspectu meo hic ponere. Hîc Speusippus, hic Xenocrates, hic ejus auditor Polemo; cujus ipsa illa sessio fuit, quam videamus. Equi∣dem etiam curiam nostram, hostiliam dico, non hanc novam, quae mihi minor esse videtur postquam est major, solebam intuens Scipio∣nem, Catonem, Laelium, nostrum vero in primis avum cogitare. Tanta vis admonitionis inest in locis; ut non sine causa ex his memoriae ducta sit disciplina.
Cicero de Finibus, lib. 5.
To be inserted in Vol. I. page 218. line 21. after these words (impressions of the senses.) beginning a new paragraph.
WE may observe the same effect of poe∣try in a lesser degree; and this is common both to poetry and madness, that the vivacity they bestow on the ideas is not deriv'd from the particular situations or connexions of the objects of these ideas, but from the present temper and disposition of the person. But Page 296 how great soever the pitch may be, to which this vivacity rise, 'tis evident, that in poetry it never has the same feeling with that which arises in the mind, when we reason, tho' even upon the lowest species of proba∣bility. The mind can easily distinguish be∣twixt the one and the other; and whatever emotion the poetical enthusiasm may give to the spirits, 'tis still the mere phantom of belief or persuasion. The case is the same with the idea, as with the passion it occa∣sions. There is no passion of the human mind but what may arise from poetry; tho' at the same time the feelings of the passions are very different when excited by poetical fictions, from what they are when they arise from belief and reality. A passion, which is disagreeable in real life, may afford the highest entertainment in a tragedy, or epic poem. In the latter case it lies not with that weight upon us: It feels less firm and solid: And has no other than the agreeable effect of exciting the spirits, and rouzing the at∣tention. The difference in the passions is a clear proof of a like difference in those ideas, from which the passions are deriv'd. Where the vivacity arises from a customary con∣junction with a present impression; tho' the imagination may not, in appearance, be so Page 297 much mov'd; yet there is always something more forcible and real in its actions, than in the fervors of poetry and eloquence. The force of our mental actions in this case, no more than in any other, is not to be mea∣sur'd by the apparent agitation of the mind. A poetical description may have a more sen∣sible effect on the fancy, than an historical narration. It may collect more of those cir∣cumstances, that form a compleat image or picture. It may seem to set the object be∣fore us in more lively colours. But still the ideas it presents are different to the feeling from those, which arise from the memory and the judgment. There is something weak and imperfect amidst all that seeming vehe∣mence of thought and sentiment, which at∣tends the fictions of poetry.
WE shall afterwards have occasion to re∣mark both the resemblances and differences betwixt a poetical enthusiasm, and a serious conviction. In the mean time I cannot for∣bear observing, that the great difference in their feeling proceeds in some measure from reflection and general rules. We observe, that the vigour of conception, which fictions receive from poetry and eloquence, is a cir∣cumstance merely accidental, of which every idea is equally susceptible; and that such Page 298 fictions are connected with nothing that is real. This observation makes us only lend ourselves, so to speak, to the fiction: But causes the idea to feel very different from the eternal establish'd persuasions founded on memory and custom. They are somewhat of the same kind: But the one is much in∣ferior to the other, both in its causes and effects.
A LIKE reflection on general rules keeps us from augmenting our belief upon every encrease of the force and vivacity of our ideas. Where an opinion admits of no doubt, or opposite probability, we attribute to it a full conviction; tho' the want of resemblance, or contiguity, may render its force inferior to that of other opinions. 'Tis thus the understanding corrects the appearances of the senses, and makes us imagine, that an object at twenty foot distance seems even to the eye as large as one of the same dimensions at ten.
To be inserted in Vol. I. page 282. line ult. after these words (any idea of power.) be∣ginning a new paragraph.
SOME have asserted, that we feel an energy, or power, in our own mind; and Page 299 that having in this manner acquir'd the idea of power, we transfer that quality to matter, where we are not able immediately to disco∣ver it. The motions of our body, and the thoughts and sentiments of our mind, (say they) obey the will; nor do we seek any far∣ther to acquire a just notion of force or power. But to convince us how fallacious this rea∣soning is, we need only consider, that the will being here consider'd as a cause, has no more a discoverable connexion with its effects, than any material cause has with its proper effect. So far from perceiving the connexion betwixt an act of volition, and a motion of the body; 'tis allow'd that no effect is more inexplicable from the powers and essence of thought and matter. Nor is the empire of the will over our mind more intelligible. The effect is there distinguishable and sepa∣rable from the cause, and cou'd not be fore∣seen without the experience of their constant conjunction. We have command over our mind to a certain degree, but beyond that lose all empire over it: And 'tis evidently impossible to fix any precise bounds to our authority, where we consult not experience. In short, the actions of the mind are, in this respect, the same with those of matter. We perceive only their constant conjunction; nor Page 300 can we ever reason beyond it. No internal impression has an apparent energy, more than external objects have. Since, therefore, matter is confess'd by philosophers to operate by an unknown force, we shou'd in vain hope to attain an idea of force by consulting our own minds a.
I HAD entertain'd some hopes, that how∣ever deficient our theory of the intellectual world might be, it wou'd be free from those contradictions, and absurdities, which seem to attend every explication, that human reason can give of the material world. But upon a more strict review of the section concern∣ing personal identity, I find myself involv'd in such a labyrinth, that, I must confess, I neither know how to correct my former opinions, nor how to render them consistent. If this be not a good general reason for scepticism, 'tis at least a sufficient one (if I were not already abundantly supplied) for me to entertain a diffidence and modesty in Page 301 all my decisions. I shall propose the argu∣ments on both sides, beginning with those that induc'd me to deny the strict and pro∣per identity and simplicity of a self or think∣ing being.
WHEN we talk of self or substance, we must have an idea annex'd to these terms, otherwise they are altogether unintelligible. Every idea is deriv'd from preceding im∣pressions; and we have no impression of self or substance, as something simple and in∣dividual. We have, therefore, no idea of them in that sense.
WHATEVER is distinct, is distinguish∣able; and whatever is distinguishable, is se∣parable by the thought or imagination. All perceptions are distinct. They are, therefore, distinguishable, and separable, and may be conceiv'd as separately existent, and may exist separately, without any contradiction or absurdity.
WHEN I view this table and that chim∣ney, nothing is present to me but parti∣cular perceptions, which are of a like na∣ture with all the other perceptions. This is the doctrine of philosophers. But this ta∣ble, which is present to me, and that chim∣ney, may and do exist separately. This is the doctrine of the vulgar, and implies no contradiction. There is no contradiction, Page 302 therefore, in extending the same doctrine to all the perceptions.
IN general, the following reasoning seems satisfactory. All ideas are borrow'd from preceding perceptions. Our ideas of objects, therefore, are deriv'd from that source. Con∣sequently no proposition can be intelligible or consistent with regard to objects, which is not so with regard to perceptions. But 'tis intelligible and consistent to say, that objects exist distinct and independent, with∣out any common simple substance or subject of inhesion. This proposition, therefore, can never be absurd with regard to per∣ceptions.
WHEN I turn my reflection on myself, I never can perceive this self without some one or more perceptions; nor can I ever per∣ceive any thing but the perceptions. 'Tis the composition of these, therefore, which forms the self.
WE can conceive a thinking being to have either many or few perceptions. Suppose the mind to be reduc'd even below the life of an oyster. Suppose it to have only one perception, as of thirst or hunger. Consider it in that situation. Do you conceive any thing but merely that perception? Have you any notion of self or substance? If not, the Page 303 addition of other perceptions can never give you that notion.
THE annihilation, which some people suppose to follow upon death, and which entirely destroys this self, is nothing but an extinction of all particular perceptions; love and hatred, pain and pleasure, thought and sensation. These therefore must be the same with self; since the one cannot survive the other.
IS self the same with substance? If it be, how can that question have place, concern∣ing the subsistence of self, under a change of substance? If they be distinct, what is the difference betwixt them? For my part, I have a notion of neither, when conceiv'd distinct from particular perceptions.
PHILOSOPHERS begin to be reconcil'd to the principle, that we have no idea of exter∣nal substance, distinct from the ideas of par∣ticular qualities. This must pave the way for a like principle with regard to the mind, that we have no notion of it, distinct from the particular perceptions.
So far I seem to be attended with suffi∣cient evidence. But having thus loosen'd all our particular perceptions, when a I proceed to explain the principle of connexion, which Page 304 binds them together, and makes us attribute to them a real simplicity and identity; I am sensible, that my account is very de∣fective, and that nothing but the seeming evidence of the precedent reasonings cou'd have induc'd me to receive it. If perceptions are distinct existences, they form a whole only by being connected together. But no connexions among distinct existences are ever discoverable by human understanding. We only feel a connexion or determination of the thought, to pass from one object to another. It follows, therefore, that the thought alone finds personal identity, when reflecting on the train of past perceptions, that compose a mind, the ideas of them are felt to be connected together, and naturally introduce each other. However extraordi∣nary this conclusion may seem, it need not surprize us. Most philosophers seem inclin'd to think, that personal identity arises from consciousness; and consciousness is nothing but a reflected thought or perception. The present philosophy, therefore, has so far a promising aspect. But all my hopes vanish, when I come to explain the principles, that unite our successive perceptions in our thought or consciousness. I cannot discover any theory, which gives me satisfaction on this head.
Page 305 IN short there are two principles, which I cannot render consistent; nor is it in my power to renounce either of them, viz. that all our distinct perceptions are distinct exist∣ences, and that the mind never perceives any real connexion among distinct existences. Did our perceptions either inhere in something simple and individual, or did the mind per∣ceive some real connexion among them, there wou'd be no difficulty in the case. For my part, I must plead the privilege of a sceptic, and confess, that this difficulty is too hard for my understanding. I pretend not, how∣ever, to pronounce it absolutely insuperable. Others, perhaps, or myself, upon more ma∣ture reflections, may discover some hypo∣thesis, that will reconcile those contra∣dictions.
I SHALL also take this opportunity of confessing two other errors of less import∣ance, which more mature reflection has dis∣cover'd to me in my reasoning. The first may be found in Vol. I. page 107. where I say, that the distance betwixt two bodies is known, among other things, by the angles, which the rays of light flowing from the bodies make with each other. 'Tis certain, that these angles are not known to the mind, and consequently can never discover the Page 306 distance. The second error may be found in Vol. I. page 171. where I say, that two ideas of the same object can only be differ∣ent by their different degrees of force and vivacity. I believe there are other differences among ideas, which cannot properly be com∣prehended under these terms. Had I said, that two ideas of the same object can only be different by their different feeling, I shou'd have been nearer the truth.
THERE are two errors of the press, which affect the sense, and therefore the reader is desir'd to correct them. In Vol. I. page 332. line penult. for as the perception read a per∣ception. In Vol. I. p. 447. line 5. for moral read natural.
A note to Vol. I. page 43. line 11. to the word (resemblance.)
'TIS evident, that even different simple ideas may have a similarity or resemblance to each other; nor is it necessary, that the point or circumstance of resemblance shou'd be distinct or separable from that in which they differ. Blue and green are different simple ideas, but are more resembling than blue and scarlet; tho' their perfect simpli∣city excludes all possibility of separation or Page 307 distinction. 'Tis the same case with parti∣cular sounds, and tastes and smells. These admit of infinite resemblances upon the ge∣neral appearance and comparison, without having any common circumstance the same. And of this we may be certain, even from the very abstract terms simple idea. They comprehend all simple ideas under them. These resemble each other in their simplicity. And yet from their very nature, which ex∣cludes all composition, this circumstance, in which they resemble, is not distinguishable nor separable from the rest. 'Tis the same case with all the degrees in any quality. They are all resembling, and yet the quality, in any individual, is not distinct from the degree.
To be inserted in Vol. I. page 88. line 19. after these words (of the present difficulty.) beginning a new paragraph.
THERE are many philosophers, who re∣fuse to assign any standard of equality, but assert, that 'tis sufficient to present two ob∣jects, that are equal, in order to give us a just notion of this proportion. All defini∣tions, say they, are fruitless, without the perception of such objects; and where we Page 308 perceive such objects, we no longer stand in need of any definition. To this reasoning I entirely agree; and assert, that the only useful notion of equality, or inequality, is deriv'd from the whole united appearance and the comparison of particular objects. For 'tis evident that the eye, &c.
To be inserted in Vol. I. page 97. line 22. after these words (practicable or imagi∣nable) beginning a new paragraph.
To whatever side mathematicians turn, this dilemma still meets them. If they judge of equality, or any other proportion, by the accurate and exact standard, viz. the enu∣meration of the minute indivisible parts, they both employ a standard, which is use∣less in practice, and actually establish the in∣divisibility of extension, which they endea∣vour to explode. Or if they employ, as is usual, the inaccurate standard, deriv'd from a comparison of objects, upon their general appearance, corrected by measuring and juxta position; their first principles, tho' certain and infallible, are too coarse to afford any such subtile inferences as they commonly draw from them. The first principles are founded on the imagination and senses: The Page 309 conclusion, therefore, can never go beyond, much less contradict these faculties.
A note to Vol. I. page 118. line 8. to these words (impressions and ideas.)
As long as we confine our speculations to the appearances of objects to our senses, with∣out entering into disquisitions concerning their real nature and operations, we are safe from all difficulties, and can never be embarrass'd by any question. Thus, if it be ask'd, if the invisible and intangible distance, interpos'd betwixt two objects, be something or no∣thing: 'Tis easy to answer, that it is some∣thing, viz. a property of the objects, which affect the senses after such a particular man∣ner. If it be ask'd, whether two objects, having such a distance betwixt them, touch or not: It may be answer'd, that this de∣pends upon the definition of the word, touch. If objects be said to touch, when there is nothing sensible interpos'd betwixt them, these objects touch: If objects be said to touch, when their images strike contiguous parts of the eye, and when the hand feels both objects successively, without any inter∣pos'd motion, these objects do not touch. The appearances of objects to our senses are Page 310 all consistent; and no difficulties can ever arise, but from the obscurity of the terms we make use of.
IF we carry our enquiry beyond the ap∣pearances of objects to the senses, I am afraid, that most of our conclusions will be full of scepticism and uncertainty. Thus if it be ask'd, whether or not the invisible and intangible distance be always full of body, or of something that by an improvement of our organs might become visible or tangible, I must acknowledge, that I find no very de∣cisive arguments on either side; tho' I am inclin'd to the contrary opinion, as being more suitable to vulgar and popular notions. If the Newtonian philosophy be rightly un∣derstood, it will be found to mean no more. A vacuum is asserted: That is, bodies are said to be plac'd after such a manner, as to receive bodies betwixt them, without impul∣sion or penetration. The real nature of this position of bodies is unknown. We are only acquainted with its effects on the senses, and its power of receiving body. Nothing is more suitable to that philosophy, than a modest scepticism to a certain degree, and a fair confession of ignorance in subjects, that exceed all human capacity.