Page images
PDF
EPUB

and perplexed the material truths of law and divinity; brought confusion, disorder, and uncertainty into the affairs of mankind; and if not destroyed, yet in a great measure rendered useless, these two great rules, religion and justice. What have the greatest part of the comments and disputes upon the laws of God and man served for, but to make the meaning more doubtful, and perplex the sense ? What has been the effect of those multiplied curious distinctions and

acute niceties, but obscurity and uncertainty, leaving the words more unintelligible, and the reader more at a loss? How else comes it to pass that princes, speaking or writi to their servants, in their ordinary commands are easily understood ; speaking to their people, in their laws, are not so ? And, as I remarked before, doth it not often happen, that a man of an ordinary capacity very well understands a text or a law that he reads, till he consults an expositor, or goes to counsel ; who, by that time he hath done explaining them, makes the words signify either nothing at all, or what he pleases.

§ 13. Whether any by-interests of these And ought professions have occasioned this, I will not here examine; but I leave it to be consi- for learning. dered, whether it would not be well for mankind, whose concernment it is to know things as they are, and to do what they ought, and not to spend their lives in talking about them, or tossing words to and fro; whether it would not be well, I say, that the use of words were made plain and direct, and that language, which was given us for the improvement of knowledge and bond of society, should not be employed to darken truth, and unsettle people's rights; to raise mists, and render unintelligible both morality and religion? Or that at least, if this will happen, it should not be thought learning or knowledge to do so ?

§ 14. Fourthly, another great abuse of 4. Taking words is the taking them for things. This, them for though it in some degree concerns all names things. in general, yet more particularly affects these of sub

not to pass

stances. To this abuse those men are most subject who most confine their thoughts to any one system, and give themselves up into a firm belief of the perfection of any received hypothesis; whereby they come to be persuaded, that the terms of that sect are so suited to the nature of things, that they perfectly correspond with their real existence. Who is there, that has been bred up in the Peripatetic philosophy, who does not think the ten names, under which are ranked the ten predicaments, to be exactly conformable to the nature of things ? Who is there of that school that is not persuaded, that substantial forms, vegetative souls, abhorrence of a vacuum, intentional species, &c. are something real? These words men have learned from their very entrance upon knowledge, and have found their masters and systems lay great stress upon them ; and therefore they cannot quit the opinion, that they are conformable to nature, and are the representations of something that really exists. The Platonists have their soul of the world, and the Epicureans their endeavour towards motion in their atoms, when at rest. There is scarce any sect in philosophy has not a distinct set of terms, that others understand not; but yet this gibberish, which, in the weakness of human understanding, serves so well to palliate men's ignorance, and cover their errors, comes, by familiar use amongst those of the same tribe, to seem the most important part of language, and of all other the terms the most significant. And should aerial and ætherial vehicles come once, by the prevalency of that doctrine, to be generally received any where, no doubt those terms would make impressions on men's minds, so as to establish them in the persuasion of the reality of such things, as much as Peripatetic forms and intentional species have heretofore done.

$ 15. How much names taken for things Instance, in

are apt to mislead the understanding, the

attentive reading of philosophical writers would abundantly discover; and that, perhaps, in words

matter.

little suspected of any such misuse. I shall instance in one only, and that a very familiar one: how many intricate disputes have there been about matter, asif there were some such thing really in nature, distinct from body; as it is evident the word matter stands for an idea distinct from the idea of body! For if the ideas these two terms stood for were precisely the same, they might indifferently, in all places, be put for one another. But we see, that though it be proper to say, there is one matter of all bodies, one cannot say there is one body of all matters; we familiarly say, one body is bigger than another; but it sounds harsh (and I think is never used) to say,onematteris bigger than another. Whence comes this then ? viz. from hence, that though matter and body be not really distinct, but wherever there is the one there is the other; yet matter and body stand for two different conceptions, whereof the one is incomplete, and but a part of the other. For body stands for a solid, extended, figured, substance, whereofmatter is but a partial and more confused conception, it seeming to me to be used for the substance and solidity of body, without taking in its extension and figure: and therefore it is that speaking of matter, we speak of it always as one, because in truth it expressly contains nothing but the idea of a solid substance, which is every where the same, every where uniform. This being our idea of matter, we no more conceive or speak of different matters in the world than we do of different solidities ; though we both conceive and speak of different bodies, because extension and figure are capable of variation. But since solidity cannot exist without extension and figure, the taking matter to be the name of something really existing nnder that precision has no doubt produced those obscure and unintelligible discourses and disputes, which have filled the heads and books of philosophers,concerning materia prima ; which imperfection or abuse, how far it may concern a great many other general terms, I leave to be considered. This, I think, I may at least say, that we should have a great many fewer disputes in the world, if words were taken for what they are, the signs of our ideas only, and not for things themselves. For when we argue about matter, or any the like term, we truly argue only about the idea we express by that sound, whether that precise idea agree to any thing really existing in nature or no. And if men would tell what ideas they make their words stand for, there could not be half that obscurity or wrangling, in the search or support of truth that there is. This makes $ 16. But whatever inconvenience folerrors last

lows from this mistake of words, this I am ing. sure, that by constant and familiar use they charm men into notions far remote from the truth of things. It would be a hard matter to persuade any one that the words which his father or schoolmaster, the parson of the parish, or such a reverend doctor used, signified nothing that really existed in nature; which, perhaps, is none of the least causes that men are so hardly drawn to quit their mistakes, even in opinions purely philosophical, and where they have no other interest but truth. For the words they have a long time been used to remaining firm in their minds, it is no wonder that the wrong notions annexed to them should not be removed. 5. Setting

$ 17. Fifthly, another abuse of words, them for is the setting them in the place of things what they

which they do or can by no means signify. cannot sig

We may observe, that in the general names nify.

of substances whereof the nominal essences are only known to us, when we put them into propositions, and affirm or deny any thing about them, we do most commonly tacitly suppose,or intend they should stand for the real essence of a certain sort of substances. For when a man says gold is malleable, he means and would insinuate something more than this, that what I call gold is malleable, (though truly it amounts to no more) but would have this understood, viz. that gold, i. e. what has the real essence of gold, is malleable ;

gave the

which amounts to thus much, that malleableness depends on, and is inseparable from, the real essence of gold. But a man not knowing wherein that real essence consists, the connexion in his mind of malleableness is not truly with an essence he knows not, but only with the sound gold he puts for it. Thus when we say, that animal rationale is, and animal implume bipes latis unguibus is not, a good definition of a man; it is plain, we suppose the name man in this case to stand for the real essence of a species, and would signify, that a rational animal better described that real essence than a two-legged animal with broad nails, and without feathers. For else, why might not Plato as properly make the word ärögwrics, or man, stand for his complex idea, made up of the idea of a body,distinguished from others by a certain shape and other outward appearances, as Aristotle make the complex idea to which he name årefwirus, or man, of body and the faculty of reasoning joined together; unless the name allowtros, or man, were supposed to stand for something else than what it signifies; and to be put in the place of some other thing than the idea a man professes he would express by it?

§ 18. It is true, the names of substances would be much more useful, and proposi- them for the

v.g. Putting tions made in them much more certain, real essences were the real essences of substances the

of subideas in our minds which those words signified. And it is for want of those real essences that our words convey so little knowledge or certainty in our discourses about them : and therefore the mind, to remove that imperfection as much as it can, makes them, by a secret supposition, to stand for a thing having that real essence, as if thereby it made some nearer approaches to it. For though the word man or gold signify nothing truly but a complex idea of properties united together in one sort of substances; yet there is scarce any body, in the use of these words, but often supposes each of those names

stances.

« PreviousContinue »