difference in the internal constitution of a stag from that of a buck, which are each of them very well known to be of one kind, and not of the other; and nobody questions but that the kinds whereof each of them is, are really different. "Your lordship farther says, 'And this difference doth not depend upon the complex ideas of substances, whereby men arbitrarily join modes together in their minds.' I confess, my lord, I know not what to say to this, because I do not know what these 'complex ideas of substances' are, 'whereby men arbitrarily join modes together in their minds.' But I am apt to think there is a mistake in the matter, by the words that follow, which are these: For, let them mistake in their complication of ideas, either in leaving out or putting in what doth not belong to them; and let their ideas be what they please; the real essence of a man, and a horse, and a tree, are just what they were.'

"The mistake I spoke of, I humbly suppose, is this: That things are here taken to be distinguished by their real essences; when, by the very way of speaking of them, it is clear that they are already distinguished by their nominal essences, and are so taken to be. For, what, I beseech your lordship, does your lordship mean when you say, 'The real essence of a man, and a horse, and a tree,' but that there are such kinds already set out by the signification of these names, 'man, horse, tree?' And what, I beseech your lordship, is the signification of each of these specific names but the complex idea it stands for? And that complex idea is the nominal essence, and nothing else. So that, taking 'man,' as your lordship does here, to stand for a kind or sort of individuals, all which agree in that common, complex idea, which that specific name stands for, it is certain that the real essence of all the individuals, comprehended under the specific name 'man,' in your use of it, would be just the same, let others leave out or put into their complex idea of 'man' what they please; because the real essence on which that unaltered complex idea, i.e. those properties depend, must necessarily be concluded to be the same. "For, I take it for granted, that in using the name 'man' in this place your lordship uses it for that complex idea which is in your lordship's mind of that species. So that your lordship, by putting it for, or substituting it in the place of, that complex idea where you say the real essence of it is just as it was, or the very same it was, does suppose the idea it stands for to be steadily the same. For if I change the signification of the word 'man,' whereby it may not comprehend just the same individuals which in your lordship's sense it does, but shut out some of those that to your lordship are men in your signification of the word 'man,' or take in others to which your lordship does not allow the name 'man;' I do not think you will say, that the real essence of man, in both these senses, is the same; and yet your lordship seems to say so when you say, 'Let men mistake in the complieation of their ideas, either in leaving out or putting in what does not belong to them; and let their ideas be what they please; the real essence of the individuals comprehended under the names annexed to these ideas will be the same:' for so, I humbly conceive, it must be put, to make out what your lordship aims at. For as your lordship puts it by the name of 'man,' or any other specific name, your lordship seems to me to suppose, that that name stands for, and not for, the same idea, at the same time. "For example, my lord, let your lordship's idea, to which you annex the sign 'man,' be a rational animal; let another man's idea be a rational animal of such a shape; let a third man's idea be of an animal of such a size and shape, leaving out rationality; let a fourth's be an animal with a body of such a shape, and an immaterial substance, with a power of reasoning; let a fifth leave out of his idea an immaterial substance: it is plain every one of these *This is the reading of the fourth edition in folio; those in octavo have ideally.—EDIT.

*

X

will call his a 'man' as well as your lordship; and yet it is as plain that 'man,' as standing for all these distinct, complex ideas, cannot be supposed to have the same internal constitution, i. e. the same real essence. The truth is, every distinct, abstract idea, with a name to it, makes a real, distinct kind, whatever the real essence (which we know not of any of them) be. "And therefore I grant it true what your lordship says in the next words: 'And let the nominal essences differ never so much, the real, common essences or nature of the several kinds are not at all altered by them:' i. e. That our thoughts or ideas cannot alter the real constitutions that are in things that exist, there is nothing more certain. But yet it is true, that the change of ideas to which we annex them, can and does alter the signification of their names, and thereby alter the kinds which by these names we rank and sort them into. Your lordship farther adds, 'And these real essences are unchangeable,' i. e. the internal constitutions are unchangeable.' Of what, I beseech your lordship, are the 'internal constitutions unchangeable?' Not of any thing that exists, but of God alone; for they may be changed all as easily by that hand that made them, as the internal frame of a watch. What, then, is it that is unchangeable? The internal constitution or real essence of a species; which, in plain English, is no more but this: Whilst the same specific name, v. g. of 'man, horse, or tree,' is annexed to or made the sign of the same abstract, complex idea under which I rank several individuals, it is impossible but the real constitution on which that unaltered, complex idea or nominal essence depends, must be the same: i. e. in other words: Where we find all the same properties, we have reason to conclude there is the same real, internal constitution from which those properties flow. "But your lordship proves the real essences to be unchangeable, because God makes them, in these following words: 'For however there may happen some variety in individuals by particular accidents, yet the essences of men, and horses, and trees remain always the same; because they do not depend on the ideas of men, but on the will of the Creator, who hath made several sorts of beings.'

"It is true, the real constitutions or essences of particular things existing' do not depend on the ideas of men, but on the will of the Creator;' but their being ranked into sorts, under such and such names, does depend, and wholly depend, on the ideas of men."

CHAPTER IV.

OF THE NAMES OF SIMPLE IDEAS.

1. Names of simple ideas, modes, and substances, have each something peculiar. Though all words, as I have shown, signify nothing immediately but the ideas in the mind of the speaker, yet, upon a nearer survey, we shall find that the names of simple ideas, mixed modes, (under which I comprise relations too,) and natural substances, have each of them something peculiar, and different from the other. For example:

2. First. Names of simple ideas and substances intimate real existence. First. The names of simple ideas and substances, with the abstract ideas in the mind which they immediately signify, intimate also some real existence, from which was derived their original pattern. But the names of mixed modes terminate in the idea that is in the mind, and lead not the thoughts any farther, as we shall see more at large in the following chapter.

3. Secondly. Names of simple ideas and modes signify always both real and nominal essence. Secondly. The names of simple ideas and modes signify always the real as well as nominal essence of their species. But the names of natural substances signify rarely, if ever, any thing but barely the nominal essences of those species, as we shall show in the chapter that treats of the names of substances in particular.

4. Thirdly. Names of simple ideas undefinable.-Thirdly. The names of simple ideas are not capable of any definitions; the names of all complex ideas are. It has not, that I know, hitherto been taken notice of by any body, what words are, and what are not, capable of being defined: the want whereof is (as I am apt to think) not seldom the occasion of great wrangling and obscurity in men's discourses, whilst some demand definitions of terms that cannot be defined; and others think they ought to rest satisfied in an explication made by a more general word and its restriction, (or, to speak in terms of art, by a genus and difference,) when, even after such definition made according to rule, those who hear it have often no more a clear conception of the meaning of the word, than they had before. This, at least, I think, that the showing what words are, and what are not, capable of definitions, and wherein consists a good definition, is not wholly besides our present purpose; and perhaps will afford so much light to the nature of these signs and our ideas, as to deserve a more particular consideration.

For

5. If all were definable, it would be a process in infinitum.—I will not here trouble myself to prove that all terms are not definable, from that progress, in infinitum, which it will visibly lead us into if we should allow that all names could be defined. if the terms of one definition were still to be defined by another, where at last should we stop? But I shall, from the nature of our ideas, and the signification of our words, show why some names can, and others cannot, be defined, and which they are.

6. What a definition is.-I think it is agreed, that a definition is nothing else but "the showing the meaning of one word by several other not synonymous terms. The meaning of words being only the ideas they are made to stand for by him that uses them, the meaning of any term is then showed, or the word is defined, when by other words the idea it is made the sign of and annexed to in the mind of the speaker, is, as it were, represented or set before the view of another; and thus its signification ascertained. This is the only use and end of definitions; and therefore the only measure of what is or is not a good definition.

7. Simple ideas, why undefinable.-This being premised, I say, that "the names of simple ideas," and those only, "are incapable of being defined." The reason whereof is this, that the several terms of a definition signifying several ideas, they can all together by no means represent an idea which has no composition at all: and therefore a definition (which is properly nothing but the showing the meaning of one word by several others not signifying each the same thing) can in the names of simple ideas have no place.

8. Instances: motion. The not observing this difference in our ideas and their names, has produced that eminent trifling in the Schools, which is so easy to be observed in the definitions they give us of some few of these simple ideas. For, as to the greatest part of them, even those masters of definitions were fain to leave them untouched, merely by the impossibility they found in it. What more exquisite jargon could the wit of man invent than this definition?" The act of a being in power, as far forth as in power;" which would puzzle any rational man, to whom it was not already known by its famous absurdity, to guess what word it could ever be supposed to be the explication of. If Tully, asking a Dutchman what beweeginge was, should have received this explication in his own language, that it was actus entis in potentia quatenus in potentia; I ask whether any one can imagine he could thereby have understood what the word beweeginge signified, or have guessed what idea a Dutchman ordinarily had in his mind, and would signify to another, when he used that sound?

9. Nor have the modern philosophers, who have endeavoured to throw off the jargon of the Schools and speak intelligibly, much better succeeded in defining simple ideas, whether by explaining their causes, or any otherwise. The atomists, who define motion to be " a passage from one place to another;" what do they more than put one synonymous word for another? For what is "passage" other than motion? And if they were asked what "passage" was, how would they better define it than by "motion?" For is it not at least as proper and significant, to say, "Passage is a motion from one place to another," as to say, "Motion is a passage?" &c. This is to translate, and not to define, when we change two words of the same signification one for another; which, when one is better understood than the other, may serve to discover what idea the unknown stands for; but is very far from a definition, unless we will say, every English word in the dictionary is the definition of the Latin word it answers, and that "motion" is a definition of motus. Nor will the successive application of the parts of the superficies of one body to those of another, which the Cartesians give us, prove a much better definition of motion, when well examined.

10. Light."The act of perspicuous, as far forth as perspicuous," is another peripatetic definition of a simple idea; which, though not more absurd than the former of motion, yet betrays its uselessness and insignificancy more plainly, because experience will easily convince any one that it cannot make the meaning of the word "light" (which it pretends to define) at all understood by a blind man: but the definition of motion appears not at first sight so useless, because it escapes this way of trial. For, this simple idea entering by the touch as well as sight, it is impossible to show an example of any one, who has no other way to get the idea of motion but barely by the definition of that name. Those who tell us, that light is a great number of little globules, striking briskly on the bottom of the eye, speak more intelligibly than the Schools: but yet these words, ever so well understood, would

make the idea the word "light" stands for, no more known to a man that understands it not before, than if one should tell him that light was nothing but a company of little tennis-balls, which fairies all day long struck with rackets against some men's foreheads, whilst they passed by others. For, granting this explication of the thing to be true; yet the idea of the cause of light, if we had it ever so exact, would no more give us the idea of light itself as it is such a particular perception in us, than the idea of the figure and motion of a sharp piece of steel would give us the idea of that pain which it is able to cause in us. For the cause of any sensation, and the sensation itself, in all the simple ideas of one sense, are two ideas; and two ideas so different and distant one from another, that no two can be more so. And therefore should Des Cartes's globules strike ever so long on the retina of a man who was blind by a gutta serena, he would thereby never have any idea of light, or any thing approaching to it, though he understood what little globules were, and what striking on another body was, ever so well. And therefore the Cartesians very well distinguish between that light which is the cause of that sensation in us, and the idea which is produced in us by it, and is that which is properly light.

any

11. Simple ideas why undefinable, farther explained.—Simple ideas, as has been shown, are only to be got by those impressions objects themselves make on our minds by the proper inlets appointed to each sort. If they are not received this way, all the words in the world made use of to explain or define of their names, will never be able to produce in us the idea it stands for. For, words, being sounds, can produce in us no other simple ideas than of those very sounds; nor excite any in us but by that voluntary connexion which is known to be between them and those simple ideas which common use has made them signs of. He that thinks otherwise, let him try if any words can give him the taste of a pine-apple, and make him have the true idea of the relish of that celebrated delicious fruit. So far as he is told it has a resemblance with any tastes whereof he has the ideas already in his memory, imprinted there by sensible objects not strangers to his palate, so far may he approach that resemblance in his mind. But this is not giving us that idea by a definition, but exciting in us other simple ideas by their known names; which will be still very different from the true taste of that fruit itself. In light and colours, and all other simple ideas, it is the same thing: for the signification of sounds is not natural, but only imposed and arbitrary. And no definition of "light," or "redness," is more fitted or able to produce either of those ideas in us, than the sound "light" or "red" by itself. For to hope to produce an idea of light or colour by a sound, however formed, is to expect that sounds should be visible, or colours audible; and to make the ears do the office of all the other senses. Which is all one as to say, that we might taste, smell, and see by the ears: a sort of philosophy worthy only of Sancho Pança, who had the faculty to see Dulcinea by hearsay. And therefore he that has not before