§3. Of the sorts of substances.-An obscure and relative idea of substance in general, being thus made, we come to have the ideas of particular sorts of substances, by collecting such combinations of simple

taken to represent distinct particular things subsisting by themselves, in which the opposed or confused idea of substance is always the first and chief.'

"If, by almost discarding substance out of the reasonable part of the world, your lordship means, that I have destroyed, and almost discarded, the true idea we have of it, by calling it a substratum, a supposition of we know not what support of such qualities as are capable of producing simple ideas in us, an obscure and relative idea; that without knowing what it is, it is that which supports accidents; so that of substance we have no idea of what it is, but only a confused obscure one of what it does; I must confess, this, and the like, I have said of our idea of substance: and should be very glad to be convinced by your lordship, or any body else, that I have spoken too meanly of it. He that would shew me a more clear and distinct idea of substance, would do me a kindness I should thank him for. But this is the best I can hitherto find, either in my own thoughts, or in the books of logicians: for their account or idea of it is, that it is ens, or res per se subsistens, et substans accidentibus; which, in effect, is no more, but that substance is a being or thing; or, in short, something, they know not what, or of which they have no clearer idea, than that it is something which supports accidents, or other simple ideas or modes, and is not supported itself, as a mode, or an accident. So that I do not see but Burgersdicius, Sanderson, and the whole tribe of logicians, must be reckoned by the gentlemen of this new way of reasoning, who have almost discarded substance out of the reasonable part of the world.

"But supposing, my lord, that 1, or these gentlemen, logicians of note in the schools, should own that we have a very imperfect, obscure, inadequate idea of substance, would it not be a little too hard, to charge us with discarding substance out of the world? For what, almost discarding, and reasonable part of the world, signifies, I must confess I do not clearly comprehend: but let almost, and reasonable part, signify here what they will, for I dare say your lordship meant something by them; would not your lordship think you were a little hardly dealt with, if, for acknowledging yourself to have a very imperfect and inadequate idea of God, or of several other things which in this very treatise you confess our understandings come short in, and cannot comprehend, you should be accused to be one of these gentlemen that have almost discarded God, or those other mysterious things, whereof you contend we have very imperfect and inadequate ideas, out of the reasonable world? For I suppose your lordship means, by almost discarding out of the reasonable world, something that is blamable, for it seems not to be inserted for a commendation; and yet I think he deserves no blame, who owns the having imperfect, inadequate, obscure ideas, where he has no better; however, if it be inferred from thence, that either he almost excludes those things out of being, or out of rational discourse, if that he meant by the reasonable world; for the first of these will not hold, because the being of things in the world, depends not on our ideas: the latter, indeed, is true in some degree, but it is no fault; for it is certain, that where we have imperfect, inadequate, confused, obscure ideas, we cannot discourse and reason about those things so well, fully, and clearly, as if we had perfect, adequate, clear, and distinct ideas."

Other objections are made against the following parts of this paragraph, by that reverend prelate, viz. "The repetition of the story of the Indian philosopher, and the talking like children about substance:" to which our author replies:

"Your lordship, I must own, with great reason, takes notice, that I paralleled, more than once, our idea of substance with the Indian philosopher's he-knew-not-what, which supported the tortoise, &c.

"This repetition is, I confess, a fault in exact writing: but I have acknowledged and excused it, in these words, in my preface: I am not ignorant how little I herein consult my own reputation, when I knowingly let my essay go with a fault so apt to disgust the most judicious, who are always the nicest readers.' And there farther add, 'That I did not publish my essay for such great masters of knowledge as your lordship; but fitted it to men of my own size, to whom repetitions might be sometimes useful.' It would not, therefore, have been beside your lordship's generosity (who were not intended to be provoked by this repetition) to have passed by such a fault as this, in one who pretends not beyond the lower rank of writers. But I see your lordship would have me exact, and without any faults; and I wish I could be so, the better to deserve your lordship's approbation.

"

'My saying, 'That when we talk of substance, we talk like children; who being asked question about something which they know not, readily give this satisfactory answer, That it is something;' your lordship seems mightily to lay it to heart in these words that follow; If this be the truth of the case, we must still talk like children, and I know not how it can be b B. 2. c. 13. § 19.

a B. 2. c. 23. §. 1. § 2. § 3.

ideas, as are by experience and observation of men's senses, taken notice of to exist together, and are, therefore, supposed to flow from the particular internal constitution, or unknown essence of that substance. Thus we come to have the ideas of a man, horse, gold, water, &c., of which substances, whether any one has any other clear idea, farther than

remedied. For if we cannot come at a rational idea of substance, we can have no principle of certainty to go upon in this debate.'

"If your lordship has any better and distincter idea of substance than mine is, which I have given an account of, your lordship is not at all concerned in what I have there said. But those whose idea of substance, whether a rational or not rational idea, is like mine, something, they know not what, must in that, with me, talk like children, when they speak of something, they know not what. For a philosopher that says, that which supports accidents, is something, he knows not what; and a countryman that says, the foundation of the great church at Harlem is supported by something, he knows not what: and a child that stands in the dark, upon his mother's muff, says he stands upon something, he knows not what, in this respect, talk all three alike. But if the countryman knows that the foundation of the church at Harlem is supported by a rock, as the houses about Bristol are; or by gravel, as the houses in London are; or by wooden piles, as the houses in Amsterdam are; it is plain, that then having a clear and distinct idea of the thing that supports the church, he does not talk of this matter as a child; nor will he of the support of accidents, when he has a clearer and more distinct idea of it, than that it is barely something. But as long as we think like children, in cases where our ideas are no clearer or distincter than theirs, I agree with your lordship, that I know not how it can be remedied, but that we must talk like them."

Farther, the bishop asks, "Whether there be no difference between the bare being of a thing, and its subsistence by itself?" To which our author answers: Yes.a But what will that do to prove, that upon my principles, we can come to no certainty of reason, that there is any such thing as substance? You seem by this question to conclude, that the idea of a thing that subsists by itself, is a clear and distinct idea of substance; but, I beg leave to ask, Is the idea of the manner of subsistence of a thing, the idea of the thing itself? if it be not, we may have a clear and distinct idea of the manner, and yet have none but a very obscure and confused one of the thing. For example: I tell your lordship, that I know a thing that cannot subsist without a support, and I know another thing that does subsist without a support, and say no more of them; can you, by having the clear and distinct ideas of having a support, and not having a support, say, that you have a clear and distinct idea of the thing, that I know which has, and of the thing that I know which has not a support? If your lordship can, I beseech you to give me the clear and distinct ideas of these, which I only call by the general name, things, that have or have not supports: for such there are, and such I shall give your lordship clear and distinct ideas of, when you shall please to call upon me for them; though I think your lordship will scarce find them by the general and confused idea of things, nor in the clearer and more distinct idea of having, or not having, a support.

"To shew a blind man that he has no clear and distinct idea of scarlet, I tell him, that his notion of it, that it is a thing or being, does not prove that he has any clear and distinct idea of it; but barely that he takes it to be something, he knows not what. He replies, That he knows more than that, v. g. he knows that it subsists, or inheres in another thing; and there is no difference, says he in your lordship's words, between the bare being of a thing, and its subsistence in another? Yes, say I to him, a great deal, they are very diffe rent ideas. But for all that, you have no clear and distinct idea of scarlet, nor such a one as I have, who see and know it, and have another kind of idea of it, besides that of inhe

rence.

"Your lordship has the idea of subsisting by itself, and, therefore, you conclude you have a clear and distinct idea of the thing that subsists by itself; which, methinks, is all one, as if your countryman should say, he hath an idea of the cedar of Lebanon, that it is a tree of a nature to need no prop to lean on for its support; therefore, he hath a clear and distinct idea of a cedar of Lebanon; which clear and distinct idea, when he comes to examine, is nothing but a general one of a tree, with which his indetermined idea of a cedar is confounded. Just so is the idea of substance; which, however clear and distinct, is confounded with the general indetermined idea of something. But suppose that the manner of subsisting by itself, gives us a clear and distinct idea of substance, how does that prove, that upon my principles we can come to no certainty of reason, that there is any such thing as substance in the world? Which is the proposition to be proved.

• Mr. Locke's third letter.

N

of certain simple ideas co-existing together, I appeal to every man's own experience. It is the ordinary qualities observable in iron, or a diamond, put together, that make the true complex idea of those substances which a smith or jeweller commonly knows better than a philosopher; who, whatever substantial forms he may talk of, has no other idea of those substances than what is framed by a collection of those simple ideas which are to be found in them; only we must take notice that our complex ideas of substances, besides all those simple ideas they are made up of, have always the confused idea of something to which they belong, and in which they subsist; and, therefore, when we speak of any sort of substance, we say it is a thing having such or such qualities, as body is a thing that is extended, figured, and capable of motion; spirit, a thing capable of thinking; and so hardness, friability, and power to draw iron, we say, are qualities, to be found in a loadstone. These and the like fashions of speaking intimate, that the substance is supposed always something besides the extension, figure, solidity, motion, thinking, or other observable ideas, though we know not what it is.

§ 4. No clear idea of substance in general.-Hence, when we talk or think of any particular sort of corporeal substances, as horse, stone, &c., though the idea we have of either of them, be but the complication, or collection, of those several simple ideas of sensible qualities, which we use to find united in the thing called horse, or stone; yet because we cannot conceive how they should subsist alone, nor one in another, we suppose them existing in, and supported by some common subject; which support we denote by the name substance, though it be certain we have no clear or distinct idea of that thing we suppose a support.

5. As clear an idea of spirit as body.-The same thing happens concerning the operations of the mind, viz. thinking, reasoning, fearing, &c., which we concluding not to subsist of themselves, nor apprehending how they can belong to any body, or be produced by it, we are apt to think these the actions of some other substance which we call spirit; whereby, yet, it is evident, that having no other idea, or notion of matter, but something wherein those many sensible qualities, which affect our senses, do subsist; by supposing a substance, wherein thinking, knowing, doubting, and a power of moving, &c., do subsist, we have as clear a notion of the substance of spirit, as we have of body; the one being supposed to be (without knowing what it is) the substratum to those simple ideas we have from without; and the other supposed (with a like ignorance of what it is) to be the substratum to those operations we experiment in ourselves within. It is plain, then, that the idea of corporeal substance in matter, is as remote from our conceptions and apprehensions, as that of spiritual substance, or spirit; and therefore, from our not having any notion of the substance of spirit, we can no more conclude its non-existence, than we can, for the same reason, deny the existence of body; it being as rational to affirm, there is no body, because we have no clear and distinct idea of the substance of matter, as to say, there is no spirit, because we have no clear and distinct idea of the substance of a spirit.

§ 6. Of the sorts of substances.-Whatever, therefore, be the secret abstract nature of substances in general, all the ideas we have of particular distinct sorts of substances, are nothing but several combinations of simple ideas, co-existing in such, though unknown, cause of their union, as to make the whole subsist of itself. It is by such combinations of simple ideas, and nothing else, that we represent particular sorts of substances to ourselves: such are the ideas we have of their several species in our minds; and such only do we, by their specific names, signify to others, v. g. man, horse, sun, water, iron; upon hearing which words, every one who understands the language, frames in his mind a combination of those several simple ideas, he has usually observed, or fancied to exist together, under that denomination; all which he supposes to rest in, and be, as it were, adherent to that unknown common subject, which adheres not in any thing else. Though in the mean time, it be manifest, and every one, upon inquiry into his own thoughts, will find that he has no other idea of any substance, v. g., let it be gold, horse, iron, man, vitriol, bread, but what he has barely of those sensible qualities which he supposes to inhere, with a supposition of such a substratum, as gives, as it were, a support to those qualities, or simple ideas, which he has observed to exist, united together. Thus, the idea of the sun, what is it but an aggregate of those several simple ideas, bright, hot, roundish, having a constant regular motion, at a certain distance from us, and, perhaps, some other? As he who thinks and discourses of the sun, has been more or less accurate in observing those sensible qualities, ideas, or properties, which are in that thing which he calls the sun.

§ 7. Power a great part of our complex ideas of substances.-For he has the most perfect idea of any of the particular sorts of substances, who has gathered and put together most of those simple ideas which do exist in it, among which are to be reckoned its active powers, and passive capacities; which, though not simple ideas, yet, in this respect, for brevity's sake, may, conveniently enough, be reckoned amongst them. Thus, the power of drawing iron is one of the ideas of the complex one of that substance we call a loadstone; and a power to be so drawn, is a part of the complex one we call iron; which powers pass for inherent qualities in those subjects. Because every substance being as apt, by the powers we observe in it, to change some sensible qualities in other subjects, as it is to produce in us those simple ideas which we receive immediately from it, does by those new sensible qualities introduced into other subjects, discover to us those powers which do thereby immediately affect our senses, as regularly as its sensible qualities do it immediately: v. g. we immediately by our senses, perceive in fire its heat and colour; which are, if rightly considered, nothing but powers in it to produce those ideas in us: we also, by our senses, perceive the colour and brittleness of charcoal, whereby we come by the knowledge of another power in fire, which it has to change the colour and consistency of wood. By the former, fire immediately; by the latter, it immediately discovers to us these several qualities, which, therefore, we look upon to be a part of the qualities of fire, and so make them a part of the complex ideas of it. For all those powers that

we take cognizance of, terminating only in the alteration of some sensible qualities in those subjects on which they operate, and so making them exhibit to us new sensible ideas; therefore it is that I have reckoned these powers amongst the simple ideas which make the complex ones of the sorts of substances; though these powers, considered in themselves, are truly complex ideas. And, in this looser sense, I crave leave to be understood, when I name any of these potentialities amongst the simple ideas which we recollect in our minds, when we think of particular substances. For the powers that are severally in them, are necessary to be considered, if we will have true distinct notions of the several sorts of substances.

§ 8. And why.-Nor are we to wonder that powers make a great part of our complex ideas of substances; since their secondary qualities are those, which, in most of them, serve principally to distinguish substances one from another, and commonly make a considerable part of the complex idea of the several sorts of them. For our senses failing us in the discovery of the bulk, texture, and figure of the minute parts of bodies, on which their real constitutions and differences depend, we are fain to make use of their secondary qualities, as the characteristical notes and marks whereby to frame ideas of them in our mind, and distinguish them one from another. All which secondary qualities, as has been shewn, are nothing but bare powers. For the colour and taste of opium, are, as well as its soporific or anodyne virtues, mere powers, depending on its primary qualities, whereby it is fitted to produce different operations on different parts of our bodies.

§ 9. Three sorts of ideas make our complex ones of substances.-The ideas that make our complex ones of corporeal substances, are of these three sorts. First, The ideas of the primary qualities of things, which are discovered by our senses, and are in them, even when we perceive them not; such are the bulk, figure, number, situation, and motion of the parts of bodies, which are really in them, whether we take notice of them or no. Secondly, The sensible secondary qualities, which depending on these, are nothing but the powers those substances have to produce several ideas in us by our senses; which ideas are not in the things themselves, otherwise than as any thing is in its cause. Thirdly, The aptness we consider in any substance, to give or receive such alterations of primary qualities, as that the substance so altered should produce in us different ideas from what it did before; these are called active and passive powers, all which powers, as far as we have any notice or notion of them, terminate only in sensible simple ideas. For whatever alteration a loadstone has the power to make in the minute particles of iron, we should have no notion of any power it had at all to operate on iron, did not its sensible motion discover it; and I doubt not, but there are a thousand changes that bodies we daily handle have a power to cause in one another, which we never suspect, because they never appear in sensible effects.

10. Powers make a great part of our complex ideas of substances. -Powers, therefore, justly make a great part of our complex ideas of substances. He that will examine his complex idea of gold, will find several of its ideas, that make it up, to be only powers, as the power of