And a stranger to them would be very liberally instructed in the nature of books, and the things they contained, if he should be told that all learned books consisted of paper and letters, and that letters were things inhering in paper, and paper a thing that held forth letters: a notable way of having clear ideas of letters and paper! But were the Latin words inhærentia and substantia put into the plain English ones that answer them, and were called "sticking on" and "under-propping;" they would better discover to us the very great clearness there is in the doctrine of substance and accidents, and show of what use they are in deciding of questions in philosophy.

21. A vacuum beyond the utmost bounds of body.-But, to return to our idea of space: If body be not supposed infinite, which I think no one will affirm, I would ask, whether, if God placed a man at the extremity of corporeal beings, he could not stretch his hand beyond his body? If he could, then he would put his arm where there was before space without body; and if there he spread his fingers, there would still be space between them without body. If he could not stretch out his hand, it must be because of some external hinderance; (for we suppose him alive, with such a power of moving the parts of his body that he hath now; which is not in itself impossible if God so pleased to have it, or at least it is not impossible for God so to move him;) and then I ask, whether that which hinders his hand from moving outwards, be substance or accident, something or nothing? And when they have resolved that, they will be able to resolve themselves what that is which is, or may be, between two bodies at a distance, that is not body, and has no solidity. In the meantime the argument is at least as good, that where nothing hinders, (as beyond the utmost bounds of all bodies,) a body put into motion may move on, as where there is nothing between, there two bodies must necessarily touch; for pure space between is sufficient to take away the necessity of mutual contact; but bare space in the way is not sufficient to stop motion. The truth is, these men must either own that they think body infinite, though they are loath to speak it out, or else affirm that space is not body. For I would fain meet with that thinking man, that can in his thoughts set any bounds to space, more than he can to duration; or, by thinking, hope to arrive at the end of either: and therefore if his idea of eternity be infinite, so is his idea of immensity; they are both finite or infinite alike.

22. The power of annihilation proves a vacuum.-Farther, those who assert the impossibility of space existing without matter, must not only make body infinite, but must also deny a power in God to annihilate any part of matter. No one, I suppose, will deny that God can put an end to all motion that is in matter, and fix all the bodies of the universe in a perfect quiet and rest, and continue them so as long as he pleases. Whoever then will allow that God can, during such a general rest, annihilate either this book or the body of him that reads it, must necessarily admit the possibility of a vacuum; for it is evident that the space that was filled by the parts of the annihilated body will still remain, and be a space

without body. For, the circumambient bodies, being in perfect rest, are a wall of adamant, and in that state make it a perfect impossibility for any other body to get into that space. And indeed the necessary motion of one particle of matter into the place from whence another particle of matter is removed, is but a consequence from the supposition of plenitude, which will therefore need some better proof than a supposed matter of fact, which experiment can never make out; our own clear and distinct ideas plainly satisfying us, that there is no necessary connexion between space and solidity, since we can conceive the one without the other. And those who dispute for or against a vacuum, do thereby confess they have distinct ideas of vacuum and plenum, i. e. that they have an idea of extension void of solidity, though they deny its existence; or else they dispute about nothing at all. For they who so much alter the signification of words, as to call extension "body," and consequently make the whole essence of body to be nothing but pure extension without solidity, must talk absurdly whenever they speak of vacuum, since it is impossible for extension to be without extension. For vacuum, whether we affirm or deny its existence, signifies space without body; whose very existence no one can deny to be possible who will not make matter infinite, and take from God a power to annihilate any particle of it.

23. Motion proves a vacuum.-But not to go so far as beyond the utmost bounds of body in the universe, nor appeal to God's omnipotency to find a vacuum, the motion of bodies that are in our view and neighbourhood seems to me plainly to evince it. For I desire any one so to divide a solid body, of any dimension he pleases, as to make it possible for the solid parts to move up and down freely every way within the bounds of that superficies, if there be not left in it a void space as big as the least part into which he has divided the said solid body. And if, where the least particle of the body divided is as big as a mustard-seed, a void space equal to the bulk of a mustard-seed be requisite to make room for the free motion of the parts of the divided body within the bounds of its superficies, where the particles of matter are 100,000,000 times less than a mustard-seed, there must also be a space void of solid matter as big as 100,000,000th part of a mustard-seed; for if it hold in one, it will hold in the other, and so on in infinitum. And let this void space be as little as it will, it destroys the hypothesis of plenitude. For if there can be a space void of body, equal to the smallest separate particle of matter now existing in nature, it is still space without body, and makes as great a difference between space and body, and body, as if it were μiya xáopa, a distance as wide as any in nature. And therefore, if we suppose not the void space necessary to motion equal to the least parcel of the divided solid matter, but to one-tenth or one-thousandth of it, the same consequence will always follow of space without matter.

24. The ideas of space and body distinct.-But the question being here, whether the idea of space or extension be the same with the idea of body, it is not necessary to prove the real existence of a vacuum, but the idea of it; which it is plain men have when

For if

they inquire and dispute whether there be a vacuum or no. they had not the idea of space without body, they could not make a question about its existence: and if their idea of body did not include in it something more than the bare idea of space, they could have no doubt about the plenitude of the world; and it would be as absurd to demand whether there were space without body, as whether there were space without space, or body without body, since these were but different names of the same idea.

25. Extension being inseparable from body, proves it not the same. -It is true, the idea of extension joins itself so inseparably with all visible and most tangible qualities, that it suffers us to see no one, or feel very few external objects, without taking in impressions of extension too. This readiness of extension to make itself be taken notice of so constantly with other ideas, has been the occasion, I guess, that some have made the whole essence of body to consist in extension; which is not much to be wondered at, since some have had their minds by their eyes and touch (the busiest of all our senses) so filled with the idea of extension, and, as it were, wholly possessed with it, that they allowed no existence to any thing that had not extension. I shall not now argue with those men who take the measure and possibility of all being only from their narrow and gross imaginations; but having here to do only with those who conclude the essence of body to be extension, because they say they cannot imagine any sensible quality of any body without extension, I shall desire them to consider, that had they reflected on their ideas of tastes and smells as much as on those of sight and touch, nay, had they examined their ideas of hunger and thirst, and several other pains, they would have found that they included in them no idea of extension at all; which is but an affection of body, as well as the rest, discoverable by our senses, which are scarce acute enough to look into the pure essences of things.

26. If those ideas which are constantly joined to all others must therefore be concluded to be the essence of those things which have constantly those ideas joined to them, and are inseparable from them, then unity is, without doubt, the essence of every thing; for there is not any object of sensation or reflection which does not carry with it the idea of one: but the weakness of this kind of argument we have already shown sufficiently.

27. Ideas of space and solidity distinct.-To conclude: Whatever men shall think concerning the existence of a vacuum, this is plain to me, that we have as clear an idea of space distinct from solidity, as we have of solidity distinct from motion, or motion from space. We have not any two more distinct ideas; and we can as easily conceive space without solidity, as we can conceive body or space without motion, though it be ever so certain that neither body nor motion can exist without space. But whether any one will take space to be only a relation resulting from the existence of other beings at a distance, or whether they will think the words of the most knowing king Solomon, "The heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee," or those more emphatical ones of

the inspired philosopher, St. Paul, "In him we live, move, and have our being," are to be understood in a literal sense, I leave every one to consider: only our idea of space is, I think, such as I have mentioned, and distinct from that of body. For whether we consider in matter itself the distance of its coherent solid parts, and call it in respect of those solid parts "extension;" or whether, considering it as lying between the extremities of any body in its several dimensions, we call it "length, breadth, and thickness;" or else, considering it as lying between any two bodies or positive beings, without any consideration whether there be any matter or no between, we call it "distance;" however named or considered, it is always the same uniform, simple idea of space, taken from objects about which our senses have been conversant, whereof having settled ideas in our minds, we can revive, repeat, and add them one to another as often as we will, and consider the space or distance so imagined either as filled with solid parts, so that another body cannot come there without displacing and thrusting out the body that was there before, or else as void of solidity, so that a body of equal dimensions to that empty or pure space may be placed in it without the removing or expulsion of any thing that was there. But, to avoid confusion in discourses concerning this matter, it were possibly to be wished that the name "extension" were applied only to matter, or the distance of the extremities of particular bodies, and the term "expansion" to space in general, with or without solid matter possessing it; so as to say, "Space is expanded, and body extended." But in this every one has his liberty: I propose it only for the more clear and distinct way of speaking.

28. Men differ little in clear simple ideas.-The knowing precisely what our words stand for would, I imagine, in this as well as a great many other cases, quickly end the dispute. For I am apt to think that men, when they come to examine them, find their simple ideas all generally to agree, though in discourse with one another they perhaps confound one another with different names. I imagine that men who abstract their thoughts, and do well examine the ideas of their own minds, cannot much differ in thinking, however they may perplex themselves with words, according to the way of speaking of the several schools or sects they have been bred up in; though amongst unthinking men, who examine not scrupulously and carefully their own ideas, and strip them not from the marks men use for them, but confound them with words, there must be endless dispute, wrangling, and jargon; especially if they be learned, bookish men, devoted to some sect, and accustomed to the language of it, and have learned to talk after others. But if it should happen that any two thinking men should really have different ideas, I do not see how they could discourse or argue one with another. Here I must not be mistaken, to think that every floating imagination in men's brains is presently of that sort of ideas I speak of. It is not easy for the mind to put off those confused notions and prejudices it has imbibed from custom, inadvertency, and common conversation: it requires pains and assiduity

to examine its ideas, till it resolves them into those clear and distinct simple ones out of which they are compounded, and to see which amongst its simple ones have or have not a necessary connexion and dependence one upon another. Till a man doth this in the primary and original notions of things, he builds upon floating and uncertain principles, and will often find himself at a loss.

CHAPTER XIV.

OF DURATION, AND ITS SIMPLE MODES.

1. Duration is fleeting extension.-There is another sort of distance or length, the idea whereof we get not from the permanent parts of space, but from the fleeting and perpetually perishing parts of succession: this we call "duration," the simple modes whereof are any different lengths of it whereof we have distinct ideas, as hours, days, years, &c. time, and eternity.

2. Its idea from reflection on the train of our ideas.-The answer of a great man to one who asked what time was, Si non rogas intelligo, (which amounts to this: "The more I set myself to think of it, the less I understand it,") might perhaps persuade one that time, which reveals all other things, is itself not to be discovered. Duration, time, and eternity are not without reason thought to have something very abstruse in their nature. But however remote these may seem from our comprehension, yet if we trace them right to their originals, I doubt not but one of those sources of all our knowledge, viz. sensation and reflection, will be able to furnish us with these ideas as clear and distinct as many other which are thought much less obscure; and we shall find that the idea of eternity itself is derived from the same common original with the rest of our ideas.

3. To understand time and eternity aright, we ought with attention to consider what idea it is we have of duration, and how we came by it. It is evident to any one who will but observe what passes in his own mind, that there is a train of ideas which constantly succeed one another in his understanding as long as he is awake. Reflection on these appearances of several ideas one after another in our minds, is that which furnishes us with the idea of succession; and the distance between any parts of that succession, or between the appearance of any two ideas in our minds, is that we call duration. For whilst we are thinking, or whilst we receive successively several ideas in our minds, we know that we do exist; and so we call the existence or the continuation of the existence of ourselves, or any thing else commensurate to the succession of any ideas in our minds, the duration of ourselves, or any such other thing co-existing with our thinking.

4. That we have our notion of succession and duration from this original, viz. from reflection on the train of ideas which we find to appear one after another in our own minds, seems plain to me, in that we have no perception of duration but by considering the train of ideas that take their turns in our understandings. When