no other simple ideas, but either from sensation or reflection."

Your lordship goes on: "and [we are still told] that herein chiefly lies the excellency of mankind above brutes, that these cannot abstract and enlarge ideas, as men do."

Had your lordship done me the favour to have quoted the place in my book, from whence you had taken these words, I should not have been at a loss to find them. Those in my book, which I can remember any where come nearest to them, run thus:

"This, I think, I may be positive in, that the power of abstracting is not at all in brutes; and that the having of general ideas 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 to*."

Though, speaking of the faculties of the human understanding, I took occasion, by the by, to conjecture how far brutes partook with men in any of the intellectual faculties; yet it never entered into my thoughts, on that occasion, to compare the utmost perfections of human nature with that of brutes, and therefore was far from saying, "herein chiefly lies the excellency of mankind above brutes, that these cannot abstract and enlarge their ideas, as men do." For it seems to me an absurdity I would not willingly be guilty of, to say, that "the excellency of mankind lies chiefly, or any ways in this, that brutes cannot abstract." For brutes not being able to do any thing, cannot be any excellency of mankind. The ability of mankind does not lie in the impotency or disabilities of brutes. If your lordship had charged me to have said, that herein lies one excellency of mankind above brutes, viz. that men can, and brutes cannot abstract, I must have owned it to be my sense; but what I ought to say to what your lordship approved or disapproved of in it, I shall better understand, when I know to what purpose your lordship was pleased to cite it.

The immediately following paragraph runs thus:

* B. ii. c. 11. 10.

"but how comes the general idea of substance to be framed in our minds ?" Is this by "abstracting and enlarging simple ideas?" No, "but it is by a complication of many simple ideas together: because not imagining how these simple ideas can subsist by themselves, we accustom ourselves to suppose some substratum wherein they do subsist, and from whence they do result, which therefore we call substance." And is this all indeed, that is to be said for the being of substance, "that we accustom ourselves to suppose a substratum ?” Is that custom grounded upon true reason, or not? If not, then accidents or modes must "subsist of themselves, and these simple ideas need no tortoise to support them: for figures and colours, &c. would do well enough of themselves, but for some fancies men have accustomed themselves to.

Herein your lordship seems to charge me with two faults: one, that I make "the general idea of substance to be framed, not by abstracting and enlarging simple ideas, but by a complication of many simple ideas together" the other, as if I had said, the being of substance had no other foundation but the fancies of

men.

As to the first of these, I beg leave to remind your lordship, that I say in more places than one, and particularly those above quoted, where ex professo I treat of abstraction and general ideas, that they are all made by abstracting; and therefore could not be understood to mean, that that of substance was made any other way; however my pen might have slipped, or the negligence of expression, where I might have something else than the general idea of substance in view, make me seem to say so.

That I was not speaking of the general idea of substance in the passage your lordship quotes, is manifest from the title of that chapter, which is, " of the complex ideas of substance." And the first section of it, which your lordship cites for those words you have set down, stands thus:

"The mind being, as I have declared, furnished with * B. ii. c. 23. § 4. + Ibid. § 1.

a great number of the simple ideas conveyed in by the senses, as they are found in exterior things, or by reflections on its own operations; takes notice also, that a certain number of these simple ideas go constantly together; which being presumed to belong to one thing, and words being suited to common apprehension, and made use of for quick despatch, are called, so united in one subject, by one name; which, by inadvertency, we are apt afterward to talk of, and consider as one simple idea, which indeed is a complication of many ideas together: because, as I have said, not imagining how these simple ideas can subsist by themselves, we accustom ourselves to suppose some substratum, wherein they do subsist, and from which they do result; which therefore we call substance."

In which words, I do not observe any that deny the general idea of substance to be made by abstraction; nor any that say, "it is made by a complication of many simple ideas together." But speaking in that place of the ideas of distinct substances, such as man, horse, gold, &c. I say they are made up of certain combinations of simple ideas; which combinations are looked upon, each of them, as one simple idea, though they are many; and we call it by one name of substance, though made up of modes, from the custom of supposing a substratum, wherein that combination does subsist. So that in this paragraph I only give an account of the idea of distinct substances, such as oak, elephant, iron, &c. how, though they are made up of distinct complications of modes, yet they are looked on as one idea, called by one name, as making distinct sorts of substances.

But that my notion of substance in general is quite different from these, and has no such combination of simple ideas in it, is evident from the immediately following words, where I say; "*the idea of pure substance in general is only a supposition of we know not what support of such qualities as are capable of producing simple ideas in us." And these two I plainly distinguish all along, particularly where I say, "whatever therefore be the secret and abstract nature of *B. ii. c. 23. § 2. † Ibid. § 6.

VOL. IV.

C

substance in general, all the ideas we have of particular distinct substances are nothing but several combinations of simple ideas, co-existing in such, though unknown, cause of their union, as makes the whole subsist of itself."

The other thing laid to my charge, is as if I took the being of substance to be doubtful, or rendered it so by the imperfect and ill-grounded idea I have given of it. To which I beg leave to say, that I ground not the being, but the idea of substance, on our accustoming ourselves to suppose some substratum; for it is of the idea alone I speak there, and not of the being of substance. And having every-where affirmed and built upon it, that a man is a substance; I cannot be supposed to question or doubt of the being of substance, till I can question or doubt of my own being. Further I say, "* that sensation convinces us that there are solid extended substances; and reflection, that there are thinking ones." So that I think the being of substance is not shaken by what I have said: and if the idea of it should be, yet (the being of things depending not on our ideas) the being of substance would not be at all shaken by my saying, we had but an obscure imperfect idea of it, and that that idea came from our accustoming ourselves to suppose some substratum; or indeed, if I should say, we had no idea of substance at all. For a great many things may be and are granted to have a being, and be in nature, of which we have no ideas. For example; it cannot be doubted but there are distinct species of separate spirits, of which we have no distinct ideas at all: it cannot be questioned but spirits have ways of communicating their thoughts, and yet we have no idea of it at all.

The being then of substance being safe and secure, notwithstanding any thing I have said, let us see whether the idea of it be not so too. Your lordship asks, with concern," and is this all indeed that is to be said for the being" (if your lordship please, let it be the idea) "of substance, that we accustom ourselves to suppose a substratum? Is that custom grounded

B. ii. c. 23. § 29.

upon true reason, or no?" I have said, that it is grounded upon this, "that we cannot conceive how simple ideas of sensible qualities should subsist alone, and therefore we suppose them to exist in, and to be supported by, some common subject, which support we denote by the name substance." Which I think is a true reason, because it is the same your lordship grounds the supposition of a substratum on, in this very page; even on "repugnancy to our conceptions, that modes and accidents should subsist by themselves." So that I have the good luck here again to agree with your lordship: and consequently conclude, I have your approbation in this, that the substratum to modes or accidents, which is our idea of substance in general, is founded in this, "that we cannot conceive how modes or accidents can subsist by themselves."

The words next following, are: "if it be grounded upon plain and evident reason, then we must allow an idea of substance, which comes not in by sensation or reflection; and so we may be certain of something which we have not by those ideas."

These words of your lordship's contain nothing, that I see in them, against me: for I never said that the general idea of substance comes in by sensation and reflection; or, that it is a simple idea of sensation or reflection, though it be ultimately founded in them: for it is a complex idea, made up of the general idea of something, or being, with the relation of a support to accidents. For general ideas come not into the mind by sensation or reflection, but are the creatures or inventions of the understanding, as, I think, I have shownt: and also, how the mind makes them from ideas, which it has got by sensation and reflection: and as to the ideas of relation, how the mind forms them, and how they are derived from, and ultimately terminate in, ideas of sensation and reflection, I have likewise shown‡.

But that I may not be mistaken what I mean, when I speak of ideas of sensation and reflection, as the materials of all our knowledge; give me leave, my lord, to

* B. ii. c. 23. § 4. † B. iii. c. 3.

B. ii. c. 25, and c. 28. § 18.