02. B15

B15 If they do not accept these proofs, no proof would convince them

XV. Lastly; They who will not, by the arguments and proofs before mentioned, be convinced of the truth and certainty of the Christian religion, and be persuaded to make it the rule and guide of all their actions, would not be convinced, (so far as to influence their practice and reform their lives,) by any other evidence whatsoever; no, not though one should rise on purpose from the dead to endeavour to convince them. That the evidence which God has afforded us of the truth of our religion is abundantly sufficient. From what has been said, upon the foregoing heads, it is abundantly evident that men are not called upon to believe the Christian religion without very reasonable and sufficient proof; much less are they [397] required to set up faith in opposition to reason; or to believe any thing for that very reason, because it is incredible. On the contrary, God has given us all the proofs of the truth of our religion, that the nature of the thing would bear, or that were reasonable either for God to give, or men to expect. And unless God should work upon men by such methods, as are wholly inconsistent with the design of religion and the nature of virtue and vice, which we are sure he will never do, nothing could have been done more than has already been done, to convince men of the truth of religion, and to persuade them to embrace their own happiness. And indeed no reasonable man can fail of being persuaded by the evidence we now have. For if, in other cases, we assent to those things as certain and demonstrated, which, if our faculties of judging and reasoning do not necessarily deceive us, do upon the most impartial view appear clearly and plainly to be true; there is the same reason why in moral and religious matters we should look upon those things likewise to be certain and demonstrated, which, upon the exactest and most deliberate judgment we are capable of making, do appear to us to be as clearly and certainly true, as it is certain that our faculties do not necessarily and unavoidably deceive us, in all our judgments concerning the nature of God, concerning the proper happiness of man, and concerning the difference of good and evil. And if, in other cases, we always act without the least hesitation, upon the credit of good and sufficient testimony, and look upon that man as foolish and ridiculous, who sustains great losses, or lets slip great opportunities and advantages in business, only by distrusting the most credible and well-attested things in the world; it is plain there is the same reason why we should do so also in matters of religion. So that unless our actions be determined by some other thing than by reason and right judgment, the evidence which we have of the great truths of religion ought to have the same effect upon our lives and actions as if they were proved to us by any other sort of evidence that could be desired. That the cause of men’s unbelief is not want of better evidence to prove the great truths of religion. It is true, the resurrection of Christ, and his other mighty works, must, after all, be confessed not to be such ocular demonstrations of the truth of his divine commission to after generations, as they were to those men who then lived, and saw him, and conversed with him. But since the matters of fact are as clearly proved to us, as it is possible for any matter of fact, at that distance of time, to be; since the evidence of this is as great, and greater, than of most of those things on which men venture the whole of their secular affairs, and on which they are willing to spend all their time and pains: Since (I say) the case is thus: He that will rather venture all that he can possibly enjoy, or suffer; he that will run the hazard of losing eternal happiness, and falling into eternal misery, rather than believe the most credible and rational thing in the world, merely because he does not see it with his eyes, it is plain that that man does not disbelieve the thing because he thinks the evidence of it not sufficiently strong, but because it is contrary to some particular vice of his, which makes it his interest that it should not be true; and for that reason he might also have disbelieved it though he had seen it himself. Men may invent what vain pretences they please, to excuse their infidelity and their wickedness; but certainly that man who can despise the authority both of reason and scripture in conjunction; who can elude the plainest evidence of matter of fact; who can be deaf to all the promises and kind admonitions of the Gospel, and to all the threatenings and terrible denunciations of the wrath of God, made known in good measure by the light of nature, and confirmed by the addition of express revelation; certainly (I say) that man must have some other reason for his unbelief than the pretended want of sufficient evidence. Did men follow the unprejudiced judgment of their own minds, and the impartial dictates of natural reason, the least possibility of obtaining eternal happiness, or the least suspicion of falling into endless misery, would immediately determine them to make it the great study and business of their lives to obtain the one and to avoid the other. If then we see men act directly contrary to this natural principle, and almost wholly neglect these things, not only when there is a fair appearance and probability of their being true, which the light of nature itself affords; but also when there is all reasonable evidence given of their being certainly true, by express revelation in the Gospel, is it not very plain that such men are governed, not by reason and the force of evidence, but by some other very different cause of their actions? But that wickedness and ungoverned lusts are the only causes of obstinate infidelity. What that cause is, is very apparent from the lives and actions of most of those persons who pretend want of evidence to be the ground of their infidelity. Their lusts, their appetites, their affections are interested: They are lovers of vice and debauchery, and slaves to evil habits and customs; and therefore they are not willing to discern the evidence which would compel them to believe that which yet they cannot believe with any comfort so long as they resolve not to part with their beloved vices. Their hearts and affections are habitually fixed upon things here below; and therefore they will not attend to the force of any argument that would raise their affections to things above. They are enslaved to the sensual pleasures and sinful enjoyments of earth; and therefore they will not hearken to any reasonable conviction which would persuade them to relinquish these present gratifications for the future and more spiritual joys of heaven. The love of this present world has blinded their eyes; [398] and therefore they receive not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto them: Neither can they know them, because they are spiritually discerned. In a word, the true and only reason why men love darkness rather than light, is, because their deeds are evil. And so long as men are under the dominion of their lusts, they would not be convinced, though the evidence of religion was even much stronger than it is. And this reason affords a sufficient account indeed why men should be very unwilling to believe the doctrines of Christianity. If they are resolved not to reform their lives, it is no wonder they care not to discern the evidence of those truths which must needs make them very uneasy in the midst of the enjoyment of all their sinful pleasures. In this case, were the proofs of the truth of our religion much stronger than they are, or than they can be imagined or desired to be, yet still these men would be in the very same case, and perpetually want stronger and stronger evidence. It is true, many men, who now are conscious and willing to acknowledge that they act contrary to all the reasonable evidence and convictions of religion, are nevertheless very apt to imagine within themselves, that if the great truths of religion were proved to them by some stronger evidence, they should by that means be worked upon to act otherwise than they do: But if the true reason why these men act thus foolishly, is not because the doctrines of religion are not sufficiently evidenced, but because they themselves are, without allowing themselves time for consideration, hurried away by some unruly passions to act directly contrary to all reason and evidence; it is plain (unless God should irresistibly compel them) they might well continue to act as they do, though the evidence of these things were really greater than it is. They are willing fondly to imagine, that if they had lived in our Saviour’s time; if they had heard his preaching, and seen his miracles; if they had had the advantage of beholding those mighty works which he performed for the proof of his divine commission, as the Jews then had;—they should not, like them, have rejected the counsel of God against themselves, but with all cheerfulness have believed his doctrine, and embraced his religion. They fancy they should immediately have become disciples of Christ; and that the truths which he taught would have had a most powerful influence upon the whole course of their lives. And if their hearts and affections were not set upon this world, more than upon the next; if they valued not the present sinful enjoyments of sense above the expectation of the glory that shall be revealed, most certainly they would do the same now. But if their hearts be set upon earthly things, and their passions be stronger than all the arguments of reason; if they do indeed so love the pleasures of sin now, as that they cannot persuade themselves, by all the motives of religion, to live like Christians, we need not doubt to affirm, that they might very well have been in the same case though they had lived in our Saviour’s time. The Jews are a notorious and standing instance, how far prejudice, envy, pride, and affection, are able to prevail over the strongest convictions. When our Saviour began to preach that he was sent from God to instruct them in their duty, they required a sign of him, and they would believe him; but when he had worked so many miracles, that even the world itself could not contain the books if they should all be written, they persisted still in their infidelity. When they saw him hanging upon the cross, and thought themselves secure of him, they said, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him: (Matthew 27:42.) But when he arose out of the grave, wherein he had lain three days, which was a much greater and more convincing miracle, they grew more hardened and obstinate in their unbelief.

Nay, not even tho’ one should rise on purpose from the dead to convince them. Others there are, who imagine that if they could but be convinced of the truth of another world, by the appearance of one sent directly from that unknown state, they would immediately become new creatures. But if God should satisfy their unreasonable demands, by sending one on purpose from the dead to convince them, there is little room to doubt, but as they harkened not to Moses and the prophets, to Christ and his apostles, so neither would they be persuaded by one rising on purpose from the dead. They might indeed be at first surprised and terrified at the appearance of so unusual and unexpected a messenger: But as wicked men upon a bed of sickness, at the amazing approach of death and eternity, resolve, in the utmost anguish of horror and despair, to amend their lives and forsake their sins; but as soon as the terror is over, and the danger of death past, return to their old habits of sin and folly;—so it is more than probable it would be in the present case. Should God send a messenger from the dead, to assure men of the certainty of a future state, and the danger of their present wickedness, as soon as the fright was over, and their present terrible apprehensions ceased, it is by no means impossible or improbable that their old vicious habits and beloved sins should again by degrees prevail over them. Some there are, in our present age, who pretend to be convinced of the being of spirits, by the powerful demonstration of their own senses; and yet we do not observe that their lives are more remarkably eminent for exemplary piety, than other good men’s, who, being convinced by the rational evidence of the gospel, go on in a sober, constant, and regular exercise of virtue and righteousness.

It is not therefore for want of sufficient evidence That therefore to make men judge rightly of the evidence of religion, it is absolutely necessary, in the first place, that, laying aside prejudice, lust, and passion, they become impartially willing to embrace all truth, and to obey all reasonable obligations which shall at any time be made known to them. that men disbelieve the great truths of religion; but plainly for want of integrity, and of dealing ingenuously and impartially with themselves, that they suffer not the arguments of religion to have that weight and influence upon them, which in the judgment of right reason they ought manifestly to have. So long as men permit their passions and appetites to over-rule their reason, it is impossible they should have due apprehensions in matters of religion, or make any right and true judgment concerning these things. Men that are strongly biassed and prejudiced even in worldly affairs, it is well known how hard and difficult it is for them to judge according to reason, and to suffer the arguments and evidences of truth to have their due weight with them. How much more in matters of religion, which concern things future and remote from sense, must it needs be, that men’s present interests, lusts, and passions, will pervert their judgment, and blind their understandings! Wherefore, men that pretend to be followers of right reason, if they will judge truly of the reasonableness and credibility of the Christian revelation, it is absolutely necessary that, in the first place, in order to that end, they become impartially willing to embrace whatever shall, upon the whole, appear to be agreeable to reason and truth, and grounded upon good evidence, without interesting their lusts and appetites in the judgment; and that, before all things, they resolve to be guided in all their actions by whatever rule shall at any time be well proved to them to be the will of God. And when they have put themselves into this temper and frame of mind, then let them try if they can any longer reject the evidence of the gospel. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God. (John 7:17.) For, them that are meek, God will guide in judgment; (Psalms 25:8.) and such as are gentle, them he will teach his way. That men of such a disposition would think it their greatest wisdom to be truly religious, even tho’ the evidences of religion were much less than they are. Indeed, men that are of this good disposition, willing to be governed by reason, and not prejudiced by lusts and vicious appetites, could not but give their assent to the doctrines of Christianity, upon account of the very intrinsic excellency and reasonableness of the things themselves, even though the external evidence of their certainty had been much less than it at present is. Nay, were there hardly any other evidence at all, than barely the excellency and reasonableness, and natural probability of the great truths of religion, together with the consideration of the vast importance of them; yet even in that case it would be infinitely wisest and most agreeable to reason, for men to live according to the rules of the gospel. And though their faith extended no further than only to a belief of the possibility of the truth of the Christian revelation, yet even this alone ought in all reason to have weight enough to determine reasonable creatures to live soberly, righteously, and godly. For is it not plainly most reasonable, as an ancient writer expresses it, [399] if each of the opposite opinions were equally doubtful and uncertain, yet by all means to embrace and entertain that which brings some hope along with it, rather than that which brings none? For on one side of the question there is no danger at all of incurring any calamity, if that which we believe and expect should at last prove false; but, on the other side, there is the greatest hazard in the world, the loss of eternal life, if the opinion which unbelievers rely upon should at last prove an error. And again: [400] What say ye, O ye ignorant men, ye men of miserable and most deplorable folly? Can ye forbear fearing within yourselves that at least those things may possibly prove true which ye now despise and mock at? Have ye not at least some misgivings of mind, lest possibly that which ye now perversely and obstinately refuse to believe, ye should at last be convinced of by sad experience, when it will be too late to repent. Nor is this the judgment of Christian writers only, but also of the wisest and most considerate heathens. We ought to spare no pains, saith Plato, [401] to obtain the habits of virtue and wisdom in this present life; for the prize is noble, and the hope is very great. And Cicero: [402] They have gained a great prize indeed who have persuaded themselves to believe, that, when death comes, they shall perish utterly: What comfort is there; what is there to be boasted of in that opinion? And again: If after death, saith he, as some little and contemptible philosophers think, [403] I shall be nothing, yet there is no danger that when we are all dead those philosophers should laugh at me for my error. But this is not our case. God has afforded us, as has been largely and particularly shown in the foregoing discourse, many and certain proofs of the truth of our religion; even as certain as any matter of fact is capable of having. And we now exhort men to believe, not what is barely possible, and excellent and probable, and of the utmost importance in itself, but what moreover they have all the positive evidence and all the reason in the world to oblige them to believe. That God may require us to take notice of certain things, and to inquire into them and consider them, at our peril. To conclude: No man of reason can pretend to say but God may require us to take notice of some things at our peril, to inquire into them, and to consider them thoroughly. Any pretence of want of greater evidence will not excuse carelessness or unreasonable prejudices, when God has vouchsafed us all that evidence which was either fit for him to grant, or reasonable for men to desire; or indeed which the nature of the thing itself to be proved was capable of. _________________________________________________________________

[397] Allois de, hosח dunamis, apodeiktikפs di erפtחseפn kai apokriseפn proserchometha; Oude legomen, (to meta chleuחs hupo tou Kelso eirחmenon) hoti Pisteuson, hon eisחgoumai soi, touton einai huion Theou, kan ח dedemenos atimotata, ח kakolasmenos aischista——Oude phamen, tautח kai mallon pisteuson.—Orig. advers. Cels. lib. 1.

[398] 1 Cor. ii. 14. Enioi upokechumenous echousi tous ophthalmous, kai mח blepontas to phפs tou hחliou. Houtפ kai su, פ anthrפpe, echeis upokechumenous tous ophthalmous tחs psuchחs sou upo tפn amartחmatפn kai tפn araxeפn sou tפn ponחrפn.—Theophil. Antioch. l. 1.

[399] Non purior ratio est, ex duobus incertis et in ambigua expectatione pendentibus, id potius credere, quod aliquas spes ferat, quam quod nullas? In illo enim periculi nihil est, si, quod dicitur imminere, cassum fiat et vacuum; in hoc, damnum est maximum (id est, salutis amissio,) si, cum tempus advenerit, aperiatur hoc fuisse mendacium.—Arnob. adv. Gentes, lib. 2.

[400] Quid dicitis, O nescii, etiam fletu et miseratione dignissimi? ita non tam extimescitis, ne sorte h¿c vera sint, qu¿ sunt despectui vobis et pr¿bent materiam risus? nec saltem vobiscum sub obscuris cogitationibus volvitis, ne, quod hoc die credere obstinata renuitis perversitate, redarguat serum tempus, et irrevocabilis pnitentia castiget?—Id. ibid.

[401] Chrח panta poiin, hפste aretחs kai phronחseפs en tפ biפ metaschein; kalon gar to hathlon, kai hח elpis megalח.—Plato in Ph¿d.

[402] Pr¿clarum nescio quid adepti sunt, qui didicerunt se, cum tempus mortis venisset, totos esse perituros.——Quid habet ista res aut l¿tabile aut gloriosum?—Cic. Tusc. Qu. lib. 1.

[403] Sin mortuus, ut quidam minuti philosophi censent, nihil sentiam, non vereor ne hunc errorem meum mortui philosophi irrideant.—Cic. De Senect. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

LETTERS TO THE REVEREND DR CLARKE, FROM A GENTLEMAN IN GLOUCESTERSHIRE:

RELATING TO THE FIRST VOLUME OF THE FOREGOING

SERMONS; WITH THE DOCTOR’S ANSWERS. _________________________________________________________________ THE FIRST LETTER.

“Reverend Sir,”

“I suppose you will wonder at the present trouble from one who is a perfect stranger to you, though you are not so to him; but I hope the occasion will excuse my boldness. I have made it, sir, my business, ever since I thought myself capable of such sort of reasoning, to prove to myself the being and attributes of God: And being sensible that it is a matter of the last consequence, I endeavoured, after a demonstrative proof, not only more fully to satisfy my own mind, but also, in order to defend the great truths of natural religion, and those of the Christian revelation which follow from them, against all opposers; but must own with concern, that hitherto I have been unsucessful; and though I have got very probable arguments, yet I can go but a very little way with demonstration in the proof of those things. When first your book on those subjects (which, by all, whom I have discoursed with, is so justly esteemed,) was recommended to me, I was in great hopes of having all my inquiries answered; but since, in some places, either through my not understanding your meaning, or what else I know not, even that has failed me, I almost despair of ever arriving to such a satisfaction as I aim at, unless by the method I now use. You cannot but know, sir, that of two different expressions of the same thing, though equally clear to some persons, yet, to others, one of them is sometimes very obscure, though the other be perfectly intelligible: Perhaps this may be my case here; and could I see those of your arguments, of which I doubt, differently proposed, possibly I might yield a ready assent to them. This, sir, I cannot but think a sufficient excuse for the present trouble; it being such an one as I hope may prevail for an answer, with one who seems to aim at nothing more than that good work of instructing others.”

“In your Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God Prop. VI. [edit. 2d, p. 69 and 70,] you propose to prove the infinity or omnipresence of the self-existent being. The former part of the proof seems highly probable, but the latter part, which seems to aim at demonstration, is not to me convincing. The latter part of the paragraph is, if I mistake not, an entire argument of itself, which runs thus; to suppose a finite being to be self-existent, is to say that it is a contradiction for that being not to exist, the absence of which may yet be conceived without a contradiction; which is the greatest absurdity in the world. The sense of these words [the absence of which] seems plainly to be determined, by the following sentence, to mean its absence from any particular place. Which sentence is to prove it to be an absurdity; and is this; for if a being can, without a contradiction, be absent from one place, it may, without a contradiction, be absent from another place, and from all places. Now, supposing this to be a consequence, all that it proves is, that if a being can, without a contradiction, be absent from one place, at one time, it may without a contradiction be absent from another place, and so from all places, at different times; (for I cannot see, that if a being can be absent from one place at one time, therefore it may without a contradiction be absent from all places at the same time, i. e. may cease to exist.) Now, if it proves no more than this, I cannot see that it reduces the supposition to any absurdity. Suppose I could demonstrate, that any particular man should live a thousand years; this man might, without a contradiction, be absent from one, and from all places, at different times; but it would not from thence follow that he might be absent from all places at the same time, i. e. that he might cease to exist. No; this would be a contradiction, because I am supposed to have demonstrated that he should live a thousand years. It would be exactly the same, if, instead of a thousand years, I should say, for ever; and the proof seems the same, whether it be applied to a self-existent or a dependent being. What else I have to offer is in relation to your proof that the self-existent being must of necessity be but one: Which proof is as follows, in Prop. VII, [edit. 2d. p. 74,]—to suppose two or more different natures existing of themselves, necessarily and independent from each other, implies this plain contradiction; that each of them being independent from the other, they may either of them be supposed to exist alone; so that it will be no contradiction to imagine the other not to exist, and consequently neither of them will be necessarily existing. The supposition indeed implies, that since each of these beings is independent from the other, they may either of them exist alone, i. e. without any relation to, or dependence on the other; but where is the third idea, to connect this proposition and the following one, viz. so that it will be no contradiction to imagine the other not to exist? Were this a consequence of the former proposition, I allow it would be demonstration, by the first corollary of Prop. III, [2d ed. p. 26; ] but since these two propositions [they may either of them be supposed to exist alone, ] and [so that it will be no contradiction to imagine the other not to exist, ] are very widely different; since likewise it is no immediate consequence, that because either may be supposed to exist independent from the other, therefore the other may be supposed not to exist at all; how is what was proposed, proved? That the propositions are different, I think is plain; and whether there be an immediate connexion, every body that reads your book must judge for themselves. I must say, for my own part, the absurdity does not appear at first sight, any more than the absurdity of saying that the angles below the base in an isosceles triangle are unequal; which, though it is absolutely false, yet I suppose no one will lay down the contrary for an axiom; because, though it is true, yet there is need of a proof to make it appear so.

“Perhaps, it may be answered, that I have not rightly explained the words, to ‘exist alone;’ and that they do not mean only to exist independent from the other; but that existing alone means that nothing exists with it. Whether this or the other was meant, I cannot determine; but, whichever it was, what I have said will hold. For if this last be the sense of those words, [they either of them may be supposed to exist alone; ] it indeed implies that it will be no contradiction to suppose the other not to exist. But then I ask, how come these two propositions to be connected: That, to suppose two different natures existing of themselves, necessarily and independent from each other, implies that each of them may be supposed to exist alone in this sense? which is exactly the same as I said before, only applied to different sentences. So that if existing alone be understood as I first took it, I allow it is implied in the supposition; but cannot see that the consequence is, that it will be no contradiction to suppose the other not to exist. But if the words ‘existing alone,’ are meant in the latter sense, I grant, that if either of them may be supposed thus to exist alone, it will be no contradiction to suppose the other not to exist. But then I cannot see, that to suppose two different natures existing, of themselves, necessarily and independent from each other, implies that either of them may be supposed to exist alone in this sense of the words, but only that either of them may be supposed to exist without having any relation to the other, and that there will be no need of the existence of the one in order to the existence of the other. But though, upon this account, were there no other principle of its existence, it might cease to exist; yet, on the account of the necessity of its own nature, which is quite distinct from the other, it is an absolute absurdity to suppose it not to exist.

“Thus, sir, I have proposed my doubts, with the reasons of them: In which, if I have wrested your words to another sense than you designed them, or in any respect argued unfairly, I assure you it was without design. So I hope you will impute it to mistake. And, if it will not be too great a trouble, let me once more beg the favour of a line from you, by which you will lay me under a particular obligation to be, what, with the rest of the world, I now am, “Reverend Sir, Your most obliged Servant, &c.”

Nov. 4. 1713. _________________________________________________________________ THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST LETTER.

“Sir,”

“Did men who publish controversial papers, accustom themselves to write with that candour and ingenuity with which you propose your difficulties, I am persuaded almost all disputes might be very amicably terminated, either by men’s coming at last to agree in opinion, or at least finding reason to suffer each other friendly to differ.

“Your two objections are very ingenious, and urged with great strength and acuteness. Yet I am not without hopes of being able to give you satisfaction in both of them. To your first, therefore, I answer: Whatever may, without a contradiction, be absent from any one place at any one time, may also, without a contradiction, be absent from all places at all times. For, whatever is absolutely necessary at all, is absolutely necessary in every part of space, and in every point of duration. Whatever can at any time be conceived possible to be absent from any one part of space, may, for the same reason, [viz. the implying no contradiction in the nature of things, ] be conceived possible to be absent from every other part of space at the same time, either by ceasing to be, or by supposing it never to have begun to be. Your instance about demonstrating a man to live 1000 years, is what (I think) led you into the mistake; and is a good instance to lead you out of it again. You may suppose a man shall live 1000 years, or God may reveal and promise he shall live 1000 years; and, upon that supposition, it shall not be possible for the man to be absent from all places in any part of that time. Very true; but why shall it not be possible? Only because it is contrary to the supposition, or to the promise of God; but not contrary to the absolute nature of things, which would be the case if the man existed necessarily, as every part of space does. In supposing you could demonstrate a man should live 1000 years, or one year, you make an impossible and contradictory supposition. For though you may know certainly, (by revelation, suppose,) that he will live so long, yet this is only the certainty of a thing true in fact, not in itself necessary: And demonstration is applicable to nothing but what is necessary in itself, necessary in all places and at all times equally.

“To your second difficulty, I answer: What exists necessarily, not only must so exist alone, as to be independent of any thing else; but (being self-sufficient,) may also so exist alone as that every thing else may possibly (or without any contradiction in the nature of things) be supposed not to exist at all; and consequently, (since that which may possibly be supposed not to exist at all, is not necessarily existent,) no other thing can be necessarily existent. Whatever is necessarily existing, there is need of its existence in order to the supposal of the existence of any other thing; so that nothing can possibly be supposed to exist, without presupposing and including antecedently the existence of that which is necessary. For instance; the supposal of the existence of any thing whatever, includes necessarily a presupposition of the existence of space and time; and, if any thing could exist without space or time, it would follow that space and time were not necessarily-existing. Therefore, the supposing any thing possibly to exist alone, so as not necessarily to include the presupposal of some other thing, proves demonstrably that that other thing is not necessarily-existing; because, whatever has necessity of existence, cannot possibly, in any conception whatsoever, be supposed away. There cannot possibly be any notion of the existence of any thing, there cannot possibly be any notion of existence at all, but what shall necessarily pre-include the notion of that which has necessary existence: And consequently the two propositions which you judged independent are really necessarily connected. These sorts of things are indeed very difficult to express, and not easy to be conceived but by very attentive minds: But to such as can and will attend, nothing (I think) is more demonstrably convictive.”

“If any thing still sticks with you in this, or any other part of my books, I shall be very willing to be informed of it; who am,”

“Sir, your assured Friend and Servant, “S. C.”

Nov. 10, 1713.

“P. S. Many readers, I observe, have misunderstood my second general proposition; as if the words [some one unchangeable and independent being] meant [one only—being, ] whereas the true meaning, and all that the argument there requires, is, [some one at least. ] That there can be but one, is the thing proved afterwards in the seventh proposition.” _________________________________________________________________ THE SECOND LETTER.

“Reverend Sir,”

“I have often thought that the chief occasions of men’s differing so much in their opinions, were, either their not understanding each other; or else, that instead of ingenuously searching after truth, they have made it their business to find out arguments for the proof of what they have once asserted. However, it is certain there may be other reasons for persons not agreeing in their opinions; and where it is so, I cannot but think, with you, that they will find reason to suffer each other to differ friendly; every man having a way of thinking, in some respects, peculiarly his own.

“I am sorry, I must tell you, your answers to my objections are not satisfactory. The reasons why I think them not so are as follow:

“You say; ‘whatever is absolutely necessary at all, is absolutely necessary in every part of space, and in every point of duration.’ Were this evident, it would certainly prove what you bring it for; viz. that whatever may, without a contradiction, be absent from one place at one time, may also be absent from all places at all times. But I do not conceive that the idea of ubiquity is contained in the idea of self-existence, or directly follows from it, any otherwise than as whatever exists must exist somewhere. You add; whatever can at any time be conceived possibly to be absent from any one part of space, may, for the same reason [viz. the implying no contradiction in the nature of things] be conceived possibly to be absent from every other part of space at the same time. Now, I cannot see, that I can make these two suppositions for the same reason, or upon the same account. The reason why I conceive this being may be absent from one place, is, because it doth not contradict the former proof [drawn from the nature of things, ] in which I proved only that it must necessarily exist. But the other supposition, viz. that I can conceive it possible to be absent from every part of space at one and the same time, directly contradicts the proof that it must exist somewhere; and so is an express contradiction. Unless it be said, that as, when we have proved the three angles of a triangle equal to two right ones, that relation of the equality ofits angles to two right ones will be wherever a triangle exists; so, when we have proved the necessary existence of a being, this being must exist everywhere. But there is a great difference between these two things; the one being the proof of a certain relation, upon supposition of such a being’s existence with such particular properties; and consequently, wherever this being and these properties exist, this relation must exist too. But, from the proof of the necessary existence of a being, it is no evident consequence that it exists everywhere. My using the word demonstration, instead of proof, which leaves no room for doubt, was through negligence, for I never heard of strict demonstration of matter of fact.

“In your answer to my second difficulty, you say; whatsoever is necessarily-existing, there is need of its existence, in order to the supposal of the existence of any other thing. All the consequences you draw from this proposition I see proved demonstrably; and consequently, that the two propositions I thought independent are closely connected. But how, or upon what account, is there need of the existence of whatever is necessarily-existing, in order to the existence of any other thing? Is it as there is need of space and duration, in order to the existence of any thing; or is it needful only as the cause of the existence of all other things? If the former be said, as your instance seems to intimate, I answer, space and duration are very abstruse in their natures, and, I think, cannot properly be called things, but are considered rather as affections which belong, and, in the order of our thoughts are antecedently necessary, to the existence of all things. And I can no more conceive how a necessarily-existing being can, on the same account or in the same manner as space and duration are, be needful in order to the existence of any other being, than I can conceive extension attributed to a thought; that idea no more belonging to a thing existing, than extension belongs to thought. But if the latter be said, that there is need of the existence of whatever is a necessary being, in order to the existence of any other thing; only as this necessary being must be the cause of the existence of all other things; I think this is plainly begging the question; for it supposes that there is no other being exists, but what is casual, and so not necessary. And on what other account, or in what other manner than one of these two, there can be need of the existence of a necessary being in order to the existence of any thing else, I cannot conceive.

“Thus, sir, you see I entirely agree with you in all the consequences you have drawn from your suppositions; but cannot see the truth of the suppositions themselves.

“I have aimed at nothing in my style but only to be intelligible; being sensible that it is very difficult (as you observe) to express one’s self on these sorts of subjects, especially for one who is altogether unaccustomed to write upon them.

“I have nothing at present more to add, but my sincerest thanks for your trouble in answering my letter, and for your professed readiness to be acquainted with any other difficulty that I may meet with in any of your writings. I am willing to interpret this as somewhat like a promise of an answer to what I have now written, if there be any thing in it which deserves one. I am, “Reverend Sir, “Your most obliged humble Servant.”

Nov. 23, 1713. _________________________________________________________________ THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND LETTER.

“Sir,”

“It seems to me, that the reason why you do not apprehend ubiquity to be necessarily connected with self-existence, is, because, in the order of your ideas, you first conceive a being, (a finite being, suppose;) and then conceive self-existence to be a property of that being; as the angles are properties of a triangle, when a triangle exists: Whereas, on the contrary, necessity of existence, not being a property consequent upon the supposition of the things existing, but antecedently the cause or ground of that existence; it is evident this necessity being not limited to any antecedent subject, as angles are to a triangle; but being itself original, absolute, and (in order of nature) antecedent to all existence, cannot but be everywhere, for the same reason that it is anywhere. [404] By applying this reasoning to the instance of space, you will find, that by consequence it belongs truly to that substance whereof space is a property, [405] as duration also is. What you say about a necessary being existing somewhere, supposes it to be finite; and being finite, supposes some cause which determined that such a certain quantity of that being should exist, neither more or less: And that cause must either be a voluntary cause, or else such a necessary cause, the quantity of whose power must be determined and limited by some other cause. But in original absolute necessity, antecedent (in order of nature) to the existence of any thing, nothing of all this can have place; but the necessity is necessarily everywhere alike.

“Concerning the second difficulty, I answer, that which exists necessarily is needful to the existence of any other thing; not considered now as a cause, (for that indeed is begging the question) but as a sine qua non; in the sense as space is necessary to every thing, and nothing can possibly be conceived to exist without thereby presupposing space: Which, therefore, I apprehend to be a property or mode of the self-existent substance; and that, by being evidently necessary itself, it proves that the substance, of which it is a mode, must also be necessary; necessary both in itself, and needful to the existence of any thing else whatsoever. Extension indeed does not belong to thought, because thought is not a being; but there is need of extension to the existence of every being, to a being which has or has not thought, or any other quality whatsoever.

“I am, Sir, “Your real Friend and Servant.”

London, Nov. 28. 1713. _________________________________________________________________ [404] See the conclusion of the Answer to the Seventh Letter.

[405] Or mode of existence. _________________________________________________________________ THE THIRD LETTER.

“Reverend Sir,”

“I do not very well understand your meaning, when you say that you think, in the order of my ideas I first conceive a being, (finite suppose,) to exist, and then conceive self-existence to be a property of that being. If you mean that I first suppose a finite being to exist, I know not why; affirming necessity of existence to be only a consequent of its existence; and that, when I have supposed it finite, I very safely conclude it is not infinite; I am utterly at a loss upon what expressions in my letter this conjecture can be founded. But if you mean that I first of all prove a being to exist from eternity, and then, from the reasons of things, prove that such a being must be eternally necessary, I freely own it. Neither do I conceive it to be irregular or absurd; for there is a great difference between the order in which things exist, and the order in which I prove to myself that they exist. Neither do I think my saying a necessary being exists somewhere, supposes it to be finite; it only supposes that this being exists in space, without determining whether here, or there, or everywhere.

“To my second objection, you say: That which exists necessarily, is needful to the existence of any other thing, as a sine qua non; in the sense space is necessary to every thing, which is proved (you say) by this consideration, that space is a property of the self-existent substance; and, being both necessary in itself, and needful to the existence of every thing else; consequently the substance of which it is a property must be so too. Space, I own, is in one sense a property of the self-existent substance; but, in the same sense, it is also a property of all other substances. The only difference is in respect to the quantity. And since every part of space, as well as the whole, is necessary; every substance consequently must be self-existent, because it hath this self-existent property; Which since you will not admit for true, if it directly follows from your arguments, they cannot be conclusive.

“What you say under the first head, proves (I think,) to a very great probability, though not to me with the evidence of demonstration: But your arguments under the second I am not able to see the force of.

“I am so far from being pleased that I can form objections to your arguments, that, besides the satisfaction it would have given me in my own mind, I should have thought it an honour to have entered into your reasonings, and seen the force of them. I cannot desire to trespass any more upon your better employed time; so shall only add my hearty thanks for your trouble on my account, and that I am, with the greatest respect, “Reverend Sir, Your most obliged humble Servant.”

Dec. 5. 1713. _________________________________________________________________ THE ANSWER TO THE THIRD LETTER.

“Sir,”

“Though, when I turn my thoughts every way, I fully persuade myself there is no defect in the argument itself, yet, in my manner of expression, I am satisfied there must be some want of clearness when there remains any difficulty to a person of your abilities and sagacity. I did not mean that your saying a necessary being exists somewhere, does necessarily suppose it to be finite, but that the manner of expression is apt to excite in the mind an idea of a finite being, at the same time that you are thinking of a necessary being, without accurately attending to the nature of that necessity by which it exists. Necessity absolute, and antecedent (in order of nature) to the existence of any subject, has nothing to limit it; but, if it operates at all, (as it must needs do,) it must operate (if I may so speak,) everywhere and at all times alike: Determination of a particular quantity, or particular time or place of existence of any thing, cannot arise but from somewhat external to the thing itself. For example; why there should exist just such a small determinate quantity of matter, neither more nor less, interspersed in the immense vacuities of space, no reason can be given; nor can there be any thing in nature which could have determined a thing so indifferent in itself, as is the measure of that quantity, but only the will of an intelligent and free agent. To suppose matter, or any other substance, necessarily-existing in a finite determinate quantity, in an inch-cube for instance, or in any certain number of cube-inches and no more, is exactly the same absurdity as supposing it to exist necessarily, and yet for a finite duration only; which every one sees to be a plain contradiction. The argument is likewise the same in the question about the original of motion: Motion cannot be necessarily-existing, because, it being evident that all determinations of motion are equally possible in themselves, the original determination of the motion of any particular body this way rather than the contrary way, could not be necessary in itself, but was either caused by the will of an intelligent and free agent, or else was an effect produced and determined without any cause at all, which is an express contradiction; as I have shown in my Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God.

“To the second head of argument I answer: Space is a property (or mode) of the self-existent substance, but not of any other substances. All other substances are in space, and are penetrated by it, but the self-existent substance is not in space, nor penetrated by it, but is itself (if I may so speak) the substratum of space, the ground of the existence of space and duration itself. Which (space and duration) being evidently necessary, and yet themselves not substances, but properties or modes, show evidently that the substance, without which these modes could not subsist, is itself much more (if that were possible) necessary. And as space and duration are needful, (i. e. sine qua non,) to the existence of every thing else; so, consequently, is the substance to which these modes belong in that peculiar manner which I before mentioned.

“I am, Sir, “Your affectionate Friend and Servant.”

Dec. 10, 1713. _________________________________________________________________ THE FOURTH LETTER.

“Reverend Sir,”

“Whatever is the occasion of my not seeing the force of your reasonings, I cannot impute it to (what you do) the want of clearness in your expression. I am too well acquainted with myself to think my not understanding an argument a sufficient reason to conclude that it is either improperly expressed, or not conclusive, unless I can clearly show the defect of it. It is with the greatest satisfaction, I must tell you, that the more I reflect on your first argument the more I am convinced of the truth of it; and it now seems to me altogether unreasonable to suppose absolute necessity can have any relation to one part of space more than to another; and, if so, an absolutely-necessary being must exist everywhere.

“I wish I was as well satisfied in respect to the other. You say, all substances, except the self-existent one, are in space, and are penetrated by it: All substances, doubtless, whether body or spirit, exist in space; but when I say that a spirit exists in space, were I put upon telling my meaning, I know not how I could do it any other way than by saying such a particular quantity of space terminates the capacity of acting in finite spirits at one and the same time, so that they cannot act beyond that determined quantity. Not but that I think there is somewhat in the manner of existence of spirits in respect of space, that more directly answers to the manner of the existence of body; but what that is, or of the manner of their existence, I cannot possibly form an idea. And it seems (if possible) much more difficult to determine what relation the self-existent being hath to space: To say he exists in space, after the same manner that other substances do, (somewhat like which I too rashly asserted in my last,) perhaps would be placing the Creator too much on a level with the creature; or, however, it is not plainly and evidently true: And to say the self-existent substance is the substratum of space, in the common sense of the word, is scarce intelligible, or at least is not evident. Now, though there may be an hundred relations distinct from either of these, yet how we should come by ideas of them I cannot conceive. We may indeed have ideas to the words, and not altogether depart from the common sense of them, when we say the self-existent substance is the substratum of space, or the ground of its existence: But I see no reason to think it true, because space seems to me to be as absolutely self-existent as it is possible any thing can be: So that, make what other supposition you please, yet we cannot help supposing immense space, because there must be either an infinity of being, or (if you will allow the expression) an infinite vacuity of being. Perhaps it may be objected to this, that though space is really necessary, yet the reason of its being necessary, is its being a property of the self-existent substance, and that it being so evidently necessary, and its dependence on the self-existent substance not so evident, we are ready to conclude it absolutely self-existent, as well as necessary; and that this is the reason why the idea of space forces itself on our minds, antecedent to, and exclusive of (as to the ground of its existence) all other things. Now this, though it is really an objection, yet it is no direct answer to what I have said, because it supposes the only thing to be proved, viz. that the reason why space is necessary is its being a property of a self-existent substance; and supposing it not to be evident that space is absolutely self-existent, yet, while it is doubtful, we cannot argue as though the contrary were certain and we were sure that space was only a property of the self-existent substance. But now, if space be not absolutely independent, I do not see what we can conclude is so; for it is manifestly necessary itself, as well as antecedently needful to the existence of all other things, not excepting, (as I think) even the self-existent substance.

“All your consequences, I see, follow demonstrably from your supposition, and, were that evident, I believe it would serve to prove several other things as well as what you bring it for: Upon which account, I should be extremely pleased to see it proved by any one; for, as I design the search after truth as the business of my life, I shall not be ashamed to learn from any person, though at the same time I cannot but be sensible that instruction from some men is like the gift of a prince; it reflects an honour on the person on whom it lays an obligation.

“I am, Reverend Sir, “Your obliged Servant.”

Dec. 16. 1713. _________________________________________________________________ THE ANSWER TO THE FOURTH LETTER.

“Sir,”

“My being out of town most part of the month of January, and some other accidental avocations, hindered me from answering your letter sooner. The sum of the difficulties it contains, is (I think) this: That it is difficult to determine what relation the self-existent substance has to space. That, to say it is the substratum of space, in the common sense of the word, is scarce intelligible, or, at least, is not evident; that space seems to be as absolutely self-existent as it is possible any thing can be: And that its being a property of the self-existent substance, is supposing the thing that was to be proved. This is entering indeed into the very bottom of the matter, and I will endeavour to give you as brief and clear an answer as I can.

“That the self-existent substance is the substratum of space, or space a property of the self-existent substance, are not perhaps very proper expressions, nor is it easy to find such: But what I mean is this: The idea of space (as also of time or duration,) is an abstract or partial idea, an idea of a certain quality or relation, which we evidently see to be necessarily-existing; and yet, which (not being itself a substance,) at the same time necessarily presupposes a substance, without which it could not exist; which substance, consequently, must be itself (much more, if possible,) necessarily-existing. I know not how to explain this so well as by the following similitude: A blind man, when he tries to frame to himself the idea of body, his idea is nothing but that of hardness. A man that had eyes, but no power of motion or sense of feeling at all, when he tried to frame to himself the idea of body, his idea would be nothing but that of colour. Now, as, in these cases, hardness is not body, and colour is not body; but yet, to the understanding of these persons, those properties necessarily infer the being of a substance, of which substance itself the persons have no idea: So space to us is not itself substance, but it necessarily infers the being of a substance, which affects none of our present senses; and, being itself necessary, it follows that the substance which it infers, is (much more) necessary.

“I am, Sir, “Your affectionate Friend and Servant.”

Jan. 29, 1713. _________________________________________________________________ THE FIFTH LETTER.

“Reverend Sir,”

“You have very comprehensively expressed in six or seven lines, all the difficulties of my letter, which I should have endeavoured to have made shorter, had I not been afraid an improper expression might possibly occasion a mistake of my meaning. I am very glad the debate is come into so narrow a compass; for I think now it entirely turns upon this, whether our ideas of space and duration are partial, so as to presuppose the existence of some other thing. Your similitude of the blind man is very apt, to explain your meaning, (which I think I fully understand;) but does not seem to come entirely up to the matter. For, what is the reason that the blind man concludes there must be somewhat external, to give him that idea of hardness? It is because he supposes it impossible for him to be thus affected, unless there were some cause of it; which cause, should it be removed, the effect would immediately cease too; and he would no more have the idea of hardness, but by remembrance. Now, to apply this to the instance of space and duration; since a man, from his having these ideas, very justly concludes that there must be somewhat external, which is the cause of them; consequently should this cause (whatever it is) be taken away, his ideas would be so too: Therefore, if what is supposed to be the cause be removed, and yet the idea remains, that supposed cause cannot be the real one. Now, granting the self-existent substance to be the substratum of these ideas, could we make the supposition of its ceasing to be, yet space and duration would still remain unaltered; which seems to show that the self-existent substance is not the substratum of space and duration. Nor would it be an answer to the difficulty, to say that every property of the self-existent substance is as necessary as the substance itself, since that will only hold while the substance itself exists: For there is implied, in the idea of a property, an impossibility of subsisting without its substratum. I grant the supposition is absurd: But how otherwise can we know whether any thing be a property of such a substance, but by examining whether it would cease to be, if its supposed substance should do so: Notwithstanding what I have now said, I cannot say that I believe your argument not conclusive; for I must own my ignorance, that I am really at a lose about the nature of space and duration. But did it plainly appear that they were properties of a substance, we should have an easy way with the atheists; for it would at once prove demonstrably an eternal, necessary, self-existent being; that there is but one such, and that he is needful in order to the existence of all other things: Which makes me think that though it may be true, yet it is not obvious to every capacity; otherwise it would have been generally used as a fundamental argument to prove the being of God.

“I must add one thing more, that your argument for the omnipresence of God seemed always to me very probable. But being very desirous to have it appear demonstrably conclusive, I was sometimes forced to say what was not altogether my opinion; not that I did this for the sake of disputing, (for besides the particular disagreeableness of this to my own temper, I should surely have chosen another person to have trifled with;) but I did it to set off the objection to advantage, that it might be more fully answered. I heartily wish you as fair treatment from your opponents in print, as I have had from you; though I must own, I cannot see, in those that I have read, that unprejudiced search after truth which I would have hoped for.

“I am, Reverend Sir, “Your most humble Servant.”

Feb. 3, 1713. _________________________________________________________________ THE ANSWER TO THE FIFTH LETTER.

“Sir,”

“In a multitude of business, I mislaid your last letter; and could not answer it till it came again to my hands by chance. We seem to have pushed the matter in question between us, as far as it will go; and, upon the whole, I cannot but take notice, I have very seldom met with persons so reasonable and unprejudiced as yourself, in such debates as these.

“I think all I need say in answer to the reasoning in your letter is; that your granting the absurdity of the supposition you were endeavouring to make, is consequently granting the necessary truth of my argument. If space and duration remain, [406] even after they are supposed to be taken away; and be not (as it is plain they are not) themselves substances, then the substance, [407] on whose existence they depend will necessarily remain likewise, even after it is supposed to be taken away; which shows that supposition to be impossible and contradictory.

“As to your observation at the end of your letter, that the argument I have insisted on, if it were obvious to every capacity, should have more frequently been used as a fundamental argument for a proof of the being of God, the true cause why it has been seldom urged, is, I think, this; that the universal prevalency of Cartes’s absurd notions, (teaching that matter [408] is necessarily infinite and necessarily eternal, and ascribing all things to mere mechanic laws of motion, exclusive of final causes, and of all will, and intelligence, and divine providence from the government of the world;) hath incredibly blinded the eyes of common reason, and prevented men from discerning him in whom they live, and move, and have their being. The like has happened in some other instances. How universally have men, for many ages, believed that eternity has no duration at all, and infinity no amplitude? Something of the like kind has happened in the matter of transubstantiation and (I think) in the scholastic notion of the trinity, &c.

“I am, Sir, “Your affectionate Friend and Servant.”

April 8. 1713. _________________________________________________________________

[406] Ut partium temporis ordo est immutabilis, sic etiam ordo partium spatii. Moveantur h¿ de locis suis, et movebuntur (ut ita dicam) de seipsis.—Newton Princip. Mathemat. Schol. ad Definit. 8.

[407] Deus non est ¿ternitas vel infinitas, sed ¿ternus et infinitus; non est duratio vel spatium, sed durat et adest. Durat semper, et adest ubique; et, existendo semper et ubique, durationem et spatium, ¿ternitatem et infinitatem, constituit. Cum unaqu¿que spatii particula sit semper, et unumquodque durationis indivisibile momentum, ubique; certט rerum omnium fabricator ac Dominus, non erit nunquam nusquam omniprזsens est, non per virtutem solam, sed etiam per substantiam; nam virtus sine substantia subsistere non potest. In ipso continentur et moventur universa, &c.—Newton. Princip. Mathemat. Schol. General. sub finem.

[408] Puto implicare contradictionem, ut mundus [meaning the material world] sit finitus.—Cartes. Epist. 69. partis primז. _________________________________________________________________ THE ANSWER TO A SIXTH LETTER, BEING PART OF A LETTER WRITTEN TO ANOTHER GENTLEMAN, WHO HAD PROPOSED SEVERAL OF THE SAME OBJECTIONS WITH THE FOREGOING.

Sir,

You will give me leave, without any preface or apology, to propose directly the best answer I can to the objections you have offered.

There are but two ways by which the being, and all or any of the attributes of God can possibly be proved. The one, a priori, the other a posteriori. The proof a posteriori [409] is level to all men’s capacities; because there is an endless gradation of wise and useful phenomena of nature, from the most obvious to the most abstruse; which afford (at least a moral and reasonable) proof of the being of God, to the several capacities of all unprejudiced men, who have any probity of mind: And this is what (I suppose) God expects (as a moral governor,) that moral agents should be determined by. The proof a priori is (I fully believe) strictly demonstrative, but (like numberless mathematical demonstrations,) capable of being understood by only a few attentive minds, because it is of use only against learned and metaphysical difficulties. And, therefore, it must never be expected that this should be made obvious to the generality of men, any more than astronomy or mathematics can be. This being premised in general, I proceed to particulars.

Concerning the notion of self-existence I explain myself thus: Of every thing that is, there is a reason which now does, or once or always did, determine the existence rather than the non-existence of that thing. Of that which derives not its being from any other thing, this reason, or ground of existence (whether we can attain to any idea of it or no,) must be in the thing itself: For though the bare proof, by ratiocination, that there cannot but exist such a being, does not indeed give us any distinct notion of self-existence, but only shows the certainty of the thing; yet when once a thing is known, by reasoning a posteriori, to be certain, it unavoidably follows that there is in nature a reason a priori, (whether we can discover it or no,) of the existence of that which we know cannot but exist. Since, therefore, in that which derives not its being from any other thing, the ground or reason why it exists rather than not exists, must be in the thing itself, and it is a plain contradiction to suppose its own will, by way of efficient cause, to be the reason of its existence, it remains that absolute necessity (the same necessity that is the cause of the unalterable proportion between 2 and 4,) be, by way of formal cause, the ground of that existence. And this necessity is indeed antecedent, though not in time, yet in the order of nature, to the existence of the being itself: Whereas, on the contrary, its own will is, in the order of nature, subsequent to the supposition of the existence of the being; and therefore cannot be the formal cause of that existence.

Nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that any thing (or any circumstance of any thing) is, and yet that there be absolutely no reason why it is, rather than not. It is easy to conceive that we may indeed be utterlyignorant of the reasons, or grounds, or causes of many things. But, that any thing is; and that there is a real reason in nature why it is, rather than is not; these two are as necessarily and essentially connected as any two correlates whatever, as height and depth, &c. The scholastic way of proving the existence of the self-existent being, from the absolute perfection of his nature, is husteron troteron; for all or any perfections presuppose existence, which is petitio principii. But bare necessity of existence does not presuppose, but infer existence. That which exists by absolute necessity of nature will always (whether you will or no) be supposed or included in any possible idea of things, even where you never so expressly endeavour to exclude it; just as the proportion between 2 and 4 remains included in the very terms wherein any man would endeavour expressly to deny it. To exist at all, and to exist everywhere, are one and the very same thing, where the cause or ground of the existence is not either confined to, or operates only in, some particular place. For 2 and 4 to have at all a certain proportion to each other, and to have that same proportion everywhere, is the very same thing; and the like is true of every thing that is necessary in itself. To suppose (as you suggest) that the self-existent being may be limited by its own nature, is presupposing a nature, or limiting quality: Whereas, in this case, here must nothing be presupposed; no nature, no quality whatsoever, but what arises (and consequently everywhere alike) from a necessity absolute in itself, and antecedent (in the order of our ideas) to any nature, place, quality, time, or thing whatsoever. When I say that necessity, absolutely such in itself, has no relation to time or place; my meaning is, that it has no relation to, or dependence upon, any particular time or place, or any thing in any particular time or place; but that it is the same in all time, and in all place. What you mean by time and place being finite, I understand not: The schoolmen’s notion of time’s depending on the motions or existence of the material world, is as senseless as the supposing it to depend on the turning or not turning of an hour-glass. The same also is true of place.

Infinite space is infinite extension; and eternity is infinite duration. They are the two first, and most obvious, and simple ideas that every man has in his mind. Time and place are the sine qua non of all other things, and of all other ideas. To suppose either of them finite, is an express contradiction in the idea itself. No man does or can possibly imagine either of them to be finite; but only, either by non-attention, or by choice, he attends perhaps to part of his idea, and forbears attending to the remainder. All the difficulty that has ever arisen about this matter, is nothing but dust thrown by men’s using words (or rather sounds only) in their philosophy, instead of ideas. And the arguments drawn from the jargon of the schoolmen, will equally prove every axiom in Euclid to be uncertain and unintelligible.

They who remove the idea of infinity, (or of a being whose attribute infinity is,) by supposing space to be nothing but a relation between two bodies, are guilty of the absurdity of supposing that which is nothing to have real qualities. For the space which is between two bodies is always unalterably just what it was; and has the very same dimensions, quantity, and figure, whether these, or any other bodies be there, or anywhere else, or not at all; just as time or duration is the same, [410] whether you turn your hour-glass, or no; or whether the sun moves, or stands still; or whether there was or was not any sun, or any material world at all. The schoolmen’s distinctions about spirits existing in ubi, and not in loco, are mere empty sounds, without any manner of signification. To set bounds to space, is to suppose it bounded by something which itself takes up space, and that is a contradiction: Or else that it is bounded by nothing, and then the idea of that nothing will still be space, which is another contradiction. Beings which exist in time, and in space, (as every finite thing must needs do,) presuppose time and space: But that being, whose existence makes duration and space, must be infinite and eternal, because duration and space can have no bounds. Not that duration and space are the formal cause of that existence, but, that necessary attributes do necessarily and inseparably infer or show to us a necessary substance; of which substance itself we have no image, because it is the object of none of our senses: But we perceive its existence by its effects, and the necessity of that existence by the necessity of certain attributes, and by other arguments of reason and inference. To suppose space removed, destroyed, or taken away, amounts to the absurd supposition of removing a thing away from itself: That is, if in your imagination you annihilate the whole of infinite space, the whole infinite space will still remain: and if you annihilate any part of it, that part will still necessarily remain, as appears by the unmoved situation of the rest: And to suppose it divided or divisible, amounts to the same contradiction. The objection of immensity being inconsistent with spirituality and simplicity, arises merely from the jargon of the schoolmen, who (in order to help out transubstantiation,) have used themselves to speak of this and of many other things in phrases which had no meaning or ideas belonging to them: By denying the real immensity and the real eternal duration of God, they, in true consequence, (though it is reasonable to suppose they saw not that consequence,) denied his being. The immensity of space, (it being throughout absolutely uniform and essentially indivisible,) is no more inconsistent with simplicity than the uniform successive flowing of the parts of duration (as you most rightly observe,) are inconsistent with simplicity. There is no difficulty at all in this point, but a mere prejudice, and false notion of simplicity. As to spirituality; the individual consciousness of the one immense being is as truly one as the present moment of time is individually one, in all places at once: And the one can no more properly be said to be an ell or a mile of consciousness, (which is the sum of your objection,) than the other can be said to be an ell or a mile of time. This suggestion seems to deserve particular consideration. To the objection, that the supposing God to be really and substantially omnipresent, is supposing him to be the soul of the world, I answer: This is a great mistake. For the word soul signifies a part of a whole, whereof body is the other part; and they, being united, mutually affect each other as parts of the same whole. But God is present to every part of the universe, not as a soul, but as a governor; so as to act upon every thing in what manner he pleases, himself being acted upon by nothing.

What you suggest about space having no parts, because it is infinite, is a mere quibble indeed, and has nothing in it. The meaning of parts, (in questions of this nature,) is separable, compounded, un-united parts, such as are the parts of matter; which, for that reason, is always a compound, not a simple substance. No matter is one substance, but a heap of substances: And that I take to be the reason why matter is a subject incapable of thought; not because it is extended, but because its parts are distinct substances, un-united, and independent on each other; which (I believe) is not the case of other substances. The kinds of substance may perhaps be more and more different from each other, than we, (at present,) for want of more senses, are aware of. Matter and spirit is no other division than matter and not matter; just as if one should divide the species of animals into horses and not horses. As to the question, why absolute necessity will not admit of the existence of two distinct independent beings, as well as of different attributes and properties in one independent being, I answer; absolute necessity, in which there is nowhere any variation, cannot be the ground of existence of a number of finite beings, however agreeing and harmonious, because that (viz. number, or finiteness,) is itself a manifest difformity or inequality. But it may be the ground or existence of one uniform infinite being: The different attributes of which one uniform being are not a variety of parts, or an un-uniformness, (if I may so speak) of the necessity by which it exists, but they are all and each of them attributes of the whole, attributes of the one simple infinite being; just as the powers of hearing and seeing are not inequalities or difformities in the soul of man; but each of them powers of the whole soul. As to the last argument you refer to, my meaning therein is this; that it is a contradiction to suppose two (or more) necessarily-existing beings, because each of them, by the supposition, being independent, and sufficient to itself, though the other were supposed not to exist, they thereby each of them mutually destroy the supposed necessity of the other’s existence, and, consequently, neither of them indeed will be necessary or independent. For instance; if matter, or spirit, or any other substance, could as possibly be conceived to exist without that in which they all exist, as that in which they all exist can be conceived to exist without them, then there would be necessary-existence on neither part. As to the question concerning the possible plurality of infinites; it is certainly true that the infinity of space neither excludes finite bodies nor finite spirits, nor infinite body, nor infinite spirit. But it excludes every thing of the same kind, whether finite or infinite; which is all that my argument requires. There can be but one infinite space, and but one infinite time, and but one infinite spirit, (taking spirit to mean a particular positive distinct substance, and not the mere negative non-matter, of which there may be innumerable kinds;) and if matter could be infinite, there could likewise be but one infinite body, and so on. For one infinite, in all dimensions, exhausts always the whole possibility of that kind, though it excludes not others. The ubi of spirits being their perception only; and the omnipresence of God being his infinite knowledge only, are mere words, without any sense at all: And, by the like confusion, any thing may be said to be any thing, and we have in us no principles of knowledge at all, nor any use either of words or ideas.

“I am, Sir,

“Your assured Friend and Servant,” &c. _________________________________________________________________

[409] Rom. i. 20. The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead.

[410] Eadem est duratio seu perseverantia existentiז rerum; sive motus sint celeres, sive tardi, sive nulli.—Newton. Princip. Mathem. schol. ad Definit. 8. _________________________________________________________________ THE ANSWER TO A SEVENTH LETTER, CONCERNING THE ARGUMENT a priori.

“To the Reverend Dr***

“Your objection against arguing at all a priori, concerning the existence and perfections of the first cause, is what many learned men have indeed stuck at. And it being evident that nothing can be prior to the first cause, they have therefore thought it sufficient to say that the first cause exists “absolutely without cause;” and that therefore there can be no such thing, as reasoning or arguing about it a priori at all. But if you attend carefully you will find this way of speaking to be by no means satisfactory. For though it is indeed most evident, that no thing, no being, can be prior to that being which is the first cause and original of all things, yet there must be in nature a ground or reason, a permanent ground or reason of the existence of the first cause: Otherwise its existence would be owing to, and depend upon mere chance. And all that could be said upon this head would amount to this only; that it exists, because it exists; that it therefore does and always did exist, because it does and always did exist: Which the followers of Spinoza will, with equal strength of reason, affirm concerning every substance that exists at all.

“If the idea of an eternal and infinite nothing were a possible idea, and not contradictory in itself; the existence of the first cause would not be necessary: [411] And if the existence of the first cause was not necessary, it would be no contradiction to suppose it either not to have existed in time past, or to cease to exist at any time to come. The existence therefore of the first cause is necessary; necessary absolutely and in itself. And therefore that necessity is, a priori, and in the order of nature, the ground or reason of its existence. For that which exists necessarily, or in the idea of which existence and necessity are inseparably and necessarily connected, must either therefore be necessary, because it exists, or else it must therefore exist because its existence is necessary. If it was therefore necessary, because it existed, then, for the same reason, every thing that exists would exist necessarily; and either every thing or nothing would be the first cause. On the contrary, if the first cause does therefore exist, because its existence is necessary, then necessity is the ground or reason or foundation of that existence; and the existence does not infer, (that is a priori, or in the order of nature and consequence, antecede) the necessity of existing; but the necessity of existing does on the contrary infer, (that is, a priori, or in the order of nature, antecede) the supposition of the existence; which is what I proposed to prove.

“The argument a posteriori is indeed by far the most generally useful argument; most easy to be understood, and in some degree suited to all capacities; and therefore it ought always to be distinctly insisted upon. But forasmuch as atheistical writers have sometimes opposed the being and attributes of God by such metaphysical reasonings as can no otherwise be obviated than by arguing a priori; therefore this manner of arguing also, is useful, and necessary in its proper place. The eternity of God can no otherwise be proved, than by considering, a priori, the nature of a necessary or self-existent cause. The temporary phenomena of nature prove indeed demonstrably, a posteriori, that there is, and has been from the beginning of those phenomena, a being of power and wisdom sufficient to produce and preserve those phenomena. But that this first cause has existed from eternity, and shall exist to eternity, cannot be proved from those temporary phenomena; but must be demonstrated from the intrinsic nature of necessary-existence. If the first cause exists “absolutely without any ground or reason of existence;” it might as possibly in times past, without any reason, have not existed; and may as possibly in times to come, without any reason, cease to exist. Can it be proved, a posteriori, that the first cause of all things will exist to-morrow? Or can it be proved any otherwise, than by showing that necessity is a certain ground of future as well as of present existence? And if so, then the ground, or reason, upon which the first cause now does, and hereafter always will, and cannot but exist, is the very same ground or reason upon which he always did exist: And, consequently, it cannot with truth be affirmed that the first cause exists “absolutely without any ground or reason of existence.” It is true, indeed, there is no antecedent reason why necessity is necessity. It is in itself essentially immediate; and it is absurd to suppose that it can be perceived otherwise than immediately and intuitively. Yet, I think, it is not an absurd question to ask, why that which is now a necessary being must equally in all past time have been, and in all future time continue to be, a necessary being? And the answer to that question will express fully all that I mean, by affirming the necessity to be the ground or reason of the existence. When atheistical writers affirm that the material universe, and every existing substance in particular, was eternal “absolutely without any ground or reason of existence;” can this assertion be confuted by him who shall himself affirm that God was eternal absolutely without any ground or reason of existence? Or can it be any other way confuted at all, than by showing that something must be necessarily-existent, (else nothing would ever have existed;) and that that which is necessarily-existent, cannot possibly be either finite or moveable, or at any time capable of any alterations, limitations, variations, inequalities, or diversifications whatsoever, either in whole, or in part, or in different parts, either of space or time? In like manner, the infinity or immensity or omnipresence of God, can no otherwise be proved than by considering, a priori, the nature of a necessary or self-existent cause. The finite phenomena of nature prove indeed demonstrably, a posteriori, that there is a being which has extent of power and wisdom sufficient to produce and preserve all these phenomena. But that this author of nature is himself absolutely immense or infinite, cannot be proved from these finite phenomena, but must be demonstrated from the intrinsic nature of necessary existence. If the first cause exists “absolutely without any ground or reason of existence,” it may as possibly be finite as infinite; it may as possibly be limited as be immense. It may as possibly, in other places, without any reason, not exist, as it does, without any reason, exist in those places where the phenomena of nature prove that it does exist. Can it be proved, a posteriori, that that governing wisdom and power, which the phenomena of nature in this material world demonstrate to be present here, must therefore be immense, infinite, or omnipresent? Must be present likewise in those boundless spaces, where we know of no phenomena or effects to prove its existence? Or can the immensity and omnipresence of the first cause be at all proved any other way than by showing that necessity of existence is capable of no limitation; but must for the same reason be the ground of immense or omnipresent existence, as it is the ground or foundation of any existence at all?

Again; the unity of God, (which, I think has always been allowed to be a principle of natural religion, otherwise St Paul could not justly have blamed the heathen as inexcusable, in that they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, and that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God: The unity of God, I say,) can no otherwise be demonstrated, than by considering, a priori, the nature of a necessary or self-existent cause. The phenomena of nature which come within the reach of our observation, prove indeed demonstrably that there is a supreme author and director of that nature, or of those phenomena, whereof we have any knowledge. But that this supreme author and governor of nature, or of these phenomena, is likewise the supreme author and governor of universal nature; cannot be entirely proved by our partial and imperfect knowledge of a few phenomena in that small part of the universe which comes within the reach of our senses; but must be demonstrated from the intrinsic nature of necessary existence. If the first cause exists “absolutely without any ground or reason of existence,” it is altogether as possible, and as probable, and as reasonable, to suppose that there may, without any reason, exist numberless finite independent coexistent first causes (either of like nature and substance to each other, or of different nature and substance from each other,) in different parts of the immense universe; as that there should, without any reason, exist one only infinite, immense, omnipresent, first cause, author and governor of the whole. That there is, and cannot but be one, and one only, such first cause, author and governor of the universe; is (I conceive) capable of strict demonstration, including that part of the argument which is deduced a prior1The subject of the question is no trifle. If any sober-minded man is persuaded, he can find any flaw in that demonstration, or cares not to examine it, lest any of its consequences should prove inconsistent with some other notions he may perhaps through prejudice have imbibed, I should be very thankful to him to show how the unity of God (the first principle of natural religion) can at all be proved by reason a posteriori only.

Some such considerations as these, (I suppose) they were, or others of the like nature, which moved Mr Limborch to write thus to Mr Locke: “Argumentum desiderat vir magnificus, quo probetur ens, cujus existentia est necessaria, tantum posse esse unum, et quidem ut id argumentum א necessitate existentia desumatur, et a priori (ut in scholis loquuntur,) non a posteriori concludat; hoc est, ex natura necessariז existentiז probatur eam pluribus non posse esse communem.” To which Mr Locke replies; “Les theologiens, les philosophes, et Descartes luy-meme, supposent l’unitי de Dieu, sans la prouver.” After which, having suggested his own thoughts, he thus concludes. “C’est la, selon moy, une preuve a priori, que l’Etre eternel independent n’est qu’un.”

“To argue, therefore, a priori concerning the existence and attributes of the first cause, is no absurdity. For though no thing, no being, can indeed be a priori to the first cause; yet arguments may, and must be drawn from the nature and consequences of that necessity, by which the first cause exists. Mathematical necessary truths are usually demonstrated a prioriand yet nothing is prior to truths eternally necessary. To confine, therefore, the use of term, argumentations above such things only as have other things prior to them in time, is on y quibbling about the signification of words.

“To the objection, that an attribute cannot be the ground or reason of the existence of the substance itself, which is always on the contrary the support of the attributes, I answer; that, in strictness of speech, necessity of existence is not an attribute, in the sense that attributes are properly so styled; but it is, [sui generis, ] the ground or foundation of existence, both of the substance and of all the attributes. Thus, in other instances, immensity is not an attribute, in the sense that wisdom, power, and the like, are strictly so called; but it is [sui generis, ] a mode of existence both of the substance and of all the attributes. In like manner; eternity, is not an attribute or property in the sense that other attributes, inhering in the substance, and supported by it are properly so called; but it is [sui generis, ] the duration of existence, both of the substance and of all the attributes. Attributes or properties, strictly so called, cannot be predicated one of another. Wisdom cannot properly be said to be powerful; or power to be wise. But immensity is a mode of existence, both of the divine substance and of all the attributes. Eternity is the duration of existence, both of the divine substance, and of all the attributes. And necessity is the ground, or reason, or foundation of existence both of the divine substance, and of all the attributes.

“I am, Sir, “Your very humble Servant, &c.”

FINIS. _________________________________________________________________ Edinburgh: Printed by A. Allardice. _________________________________________________________________

[411] Nothing, is that of which every thing can truly be denied and no thing can truly be affirmed. So that the idea of nothing, (if I may so speak,) is absolutely the negation of all ideas. The idea therefore either of a finite or infinite nothing is a contradiction in terms.) (For necessity of being, and possibility of not being, are contradictory ideas.