This is a modern-English version of Six metaphysical meditations: Wherein it is proved that there is a God and that mans mind is really distinct from his body, originally written by Descartes, René. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

SIX
METAPHYSICAL
MEDITATIONS;

Wherein it is Proved
That there is a
GOD.
And that Mans MIND is really distinct from his BODY.
Written Originally in Latin
By RENATUS DES-CARTES.

SIX
METAPHYSICAL
MEDITATIONS;

Where it is Proved
That’s a
GOD.
And that the mind of a person is truly separate from their body.
Originally Written in Latin
By RENATUS DES-CARTES.

Hereunto are added the OBJECTIONS made against these Meditations
By THOMAS HOBBES
Of Malmesbury.
With the AUTHORS Answers.

Here are the OBJECTIONS made against these Meditations
By THOMAS HOBBES
Of Malmesbury.
With the WRITERS Answers.

All Faithfully Translated into ENGLISH, with a short Account of
Des-Cartes’s Life.
By WILLIAM MOLYNEUX.

All Faithfully Translated into English, with a brief Overview of
Descartes's Life.
By William Molyneux.

London, Printed by B.G. for Benj. Tooke at the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1680.

London, Printed by B.G. for Benj. Tooke at the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1680.


Some Books sold by John Lawrence, at the Angel in Cornhill, near the Royal Exchange.

Some books sold by John Lawrence at the Angel in Cornhill, close to the Royal Exchange.

A Collection of Letters for the improvement of Husbandry and Trade, intended to be continued Monthly, by John Houghton, fellow of the Royal Society, ’tis designed that every Letter shall be usefull to Mankind, and by degrees for most persons of both Sexes.

A Collection of Letters for the Improvement of Husbandry and Trade, intended to be continued Monthly, by John Houghton, Fellow of the Royal Society, is designed so that every Letter will be useful to humanity, and gradually for most people of both genders.

The Merchant Royal, (a very pleasant Sermon) Preached before the King at White-Hall, upon the Nuptials of an Honourable Lord and his Lady, in Quarto, price 6d.

The Merchant Royal, (a very enjoyable sermon) preached before the King at White-Hall, about the wedding of an honorable Lord and his Lady, in Quarto, price 6d.

Humane Prudence, or the Art by which a man may raise himself and Fortune to Granduer, by A. B., the second Edition, with the Addition of a Table; in Twelves, price Bound, 1s.

Humane Prudence, or the Skill through which a person can elevate themselves and their Fortune to Greatness, by A. B., the second Edition, with the Addition of a Table; in Twelves, priced Bound, 1s.


THE
TRANSLATORS
Introduction.
TO THE
AUDIENCE.

Had honor or applause and not the publick advantage of English Readers been the design of this Undertaking, the consideration of the common Fate of Translations had discouraged Me from permitting this even to have seen the light; for meer Versions do alwayes carry with them this Property, that if not well done they may much disgrace, but if well, not much commend the doers.

If I had aimed for honor or praise instead of benefiting English readers, the typical outcomes of translations would have discouraged me from letting this see the light of day; because mere translations always come with this trait: if they’re not done well, they can heavily embarrass the translators, but if they are well done, they don’t really offer much praise to those who made them.

And certainly I might well have expected the same chance, had this been the Translation of an History, Play or Romance; wherein there is requisite not onely a bare version but a conformation of Idiom and language, manner and customary expression; But the nature of this present Work will not admit of the like liberty, and therefore, I hope, amongst Judicious Readers it may be exempt from the common Fate of Translations; for if we look upon it as a Philosophical or Metaphysical Tract, or rather as (really it is) a Physico-Mathematical Argumentation, we shall find that a great strictness of Expression is requisite to be observed therein. So that had a Translator taken upon him to use his own liberty of Phrase, he would thereby have endanger’d the sense and force of the Arguments; for Politeness of language might as well be expected in a Translation of Euclide as in this. And all that are acquainted with this famous Authors design, do very well know, that it was his intention in these Meditations Mathematically to demonstrate, that there is a God, and that mans mind is incorporeal. And it was his opinion, that metaphysicks may as clearly be demonstrated as mathematicks, as witness his expression in the Dedicatory Epistle of this Work to the Sorbone Doctors, Eas (Rationes scilicet) quibus hic utor certitudine & evidentiâ Geometricas æquare, vel etiam superare existimem; That he reputed his Arguments used in these Meditations, to equal if not excell Geometrical certainty.

And of course, I could have expected the same opportunity had this been the translation of a history, play, or romance; in those cases, a simple version isn't enough—there's a need for adapting idioms, language style, and customary expressions. However, the nature of this current work doesn’t allow for that kind of freedom, and so I hope, among discerning readers, it may be free from the usual fate of translations. If we consider it as a philosophical or metaphysical text, or, more accurately, as a physico-mathematical argument, we’ll see that a high level of precision in expression is necessary. Thus, if a translator were to take liberties with phrasing, it would risk compromising the meaning and impact of the arguments; one could as easily expect politeness of language in a translation of Euclid as in this work. Anyone familiar with the intention of this renowned author knows that he aimed, in these meditations, to mathematically demonstrate that there is a God and that the human mind is immaterial. He believed that metaphysics could be demonstrated as clearly as mathematics, as evidenced by his statement in the dedicatory epistle of this work to the Sorbonne University doctors: Eas (Rationes scilicet) In which I believe I can use certainty and clarity to equal or even surpass geometrical methods.; he regarded the arguments used in these meditations as equal to, if not exceeding, geometric certainty.

And this, I suppose, is sufficient to make the Reader, not expect herein any smoothness of phrase or quaintness of Expression; what is here delivered in English is immediately taken, as it is naturally in the Original. The words, we hope, may be apposite enough, and fit to express what is here designed, and I think it a derogation from the Authors skill to draw the Picture of his mind in any other Colours, than what his own Copy expresses.

So, I guess this is enough to let the Reader know not to expect any fancy language or unique expressions here; what you find in English is directly taken from the Original. We hope the words are suitable and accurately convey what we're trying to communicate, and I believe it would be a disservice to the Author's talent to portray his thoughts in any colors other than those found in his own work.

Thus far in vindication of the Philosophical plain stile and rough Language of the following Translation. I shall add a line or two, first relating to the Readers, secondly of the Author, and lastly of the Meditations themselves, together with the Motives which excited me to this Work.

So far, to support the straightforward and unrefined language of this translation, I’ll add a few lines: first about the readers, then about the author, and finally about the meditations themselves, along with the reasons that inspired me to undertake this work.

As to the Readers, ’tis, I suppose, so evident that candour of mind, and freedome from prejudice is requisite to all that desire to advantage themselves by reading other mens notions, that it need not be here insisted on with much earnestness; yet considering the Antiquity of this subject, and the novelty of the Arguments here produced, it seems to be more than ordinarily requisite for an impartial perusal of the ensuing Tract. Neither are the following Meditations to be slightly passed over, but with diligence and attention to be read; for as in mathematical demonstration, the careless missing of any one single Position may render the Conclusion obscure and sometimes inconsequent, so in these metaphysical Demonstrations, which (as, before has been noted from the illustrious Author thereof) for certainty do equal, if not excel Geometrical Propositions, the slight attention to any one particular Argument may frustrate the design of the whole discourse.

For the readers, it's pretty clear that an open mind and freedom from bias are essential for anyone who wants to benefit from reading other people's ideas. There's no need to emphasize this too strongly; however, given the age of this topic and the fresh arguments presented here, it's especially important for an unbiased reading of this work. The following reflections shouldn’t be skimmed over lightly; they should be read with care and attention. Just like in mathematics, where skipping even one single point can make the conclusion unclear or even invalid, the same goes for these philosophical arguments, which— as noted earlier by the distinguished author—are just as reliable, if not more so, than geometric proofs. Overlooking any one specific point could undermine the entire discussion.

The Reasoning therefore here being close and solid, and (as in Mathematicks) the knowledge of the latter depending on the knowledge of what went before, ’tis the duty of every Reader seriously to attend the Particulars, as also the connexion of the whole. Let him weigh the Arguments and perpend the Conclusions, and after a clear and distinct Knowledge, lett him pass his judgement.

The reasoning here is strong and solid, and just like in mathematics, understanding the later points relies on grasping what came before. It's the responsibility of every reader to pay close attention to the details and how everything connects. They should weigh the arguments and consider the conclusions, and after gaining a clear and thorough understanding, let them pass their judgment.

And to this end I shall make it my request to every Reader, that he would not be content with a single perusal of the following Discourses, but that he would often repeat his reading them over; for by this means the force of those Arguments, which at first may by chance escape the most diligent and attentive Peruser, by a second or third Essay may offer themselves more fully to his Consideration. This was the desire of our Author in an other of his pieces, I mean his Principles of Philosophy, which I am sure do not require so strict an attention of mind, as these abstracted speculations; and therefore if it were his Request in that case, we may Reasonably think that ’twas no less his desire in this.

With that in mind, I ask every Reader not to be satisfied with just one reading of the following Discourses, but to revisit them frequently. Doing so will ensure that the strength of the Arguments, which might initially be missed even by the most careful and focused Reader, will become clearer upon a second or third reading. This was our Author's intention in another of his works, namely his Philosophy Principles, which I believe do not demand as intense concentration as these complex thoughts. Therefore, if he wanted that for that piece, it's reasonable to think he intended the same here.

When we come to speak of the Incomparable Author of these Meditations, we have reason to lament our own Ignorance, and to blame the Ingratitude of the Age wherein he lived, for not transmitting to Posterity more certain and ample Records of the Life and Conversation of this Excellent Philosopher, all that has been Written in this kind gives us only so much light into the Life of this Prodigious Man, as may make us wish for more; imparting which, I shall recommend the Readers to a further enquiry into the inward Thoughts, (largly discover’d in the Writings) of our Famous Author, of whose outward actions and condition we have so small knowledge.

When we talk about the Incomparable Author of these Meditations, we have every reason to regret our own ignorance and criticize the ingratitude of the time he lived in for not leaving us more certain and detailed records of the life and interactions of this remarkable philosopher. Everything that has been written on this subject only gives us enough insight into the life of this extraordinary man to make us yearn for more. To dive deeper into this, I encourage readers to explore the inner thoughts extensively revealed in his writings, as our knowledge of his external actions and circumstances is quite limited.

Renatus Des-Cartes was born on the last day of March in the year 1596. at Tours, or at Castrum Eraldum a Town near Tours in France; He came of an Antient and Noble Family, being by Descent Lord of Perron, His Father was a Senator of his Country, and a Man of no mean estate, leaving to this his only Son by a second Wife between six and seven thousand pounds a year.

Renatus Des-Cartes was born on the last day of March in 1596 at Tours, or at Eraldum Castle, a town near Tours in France. He came from an ancient and noble family, being a descendant and Lord of Perron. His father was a senator in his country and a man of considerable wealth, leaving his only son by a second wife between six and seven thousand pounds a year.

He was Educated in his younger years according to the manner of his Country (and as he himself recommends in one of his Epistles, viz. Epist. 90. partis secundæ to One for the Instruction of his Son) in the Aristotelian principles of Philosophy, a whole course whereof he had run through at the Age of seventeen in the Schools of Flexia, or La Flesche a Town in the Province of Anjou, famous for the Colledge of Jesuites there establish’d by Henry the 4th.

He was educated in his early years in the way typical of his country (and as he himself advises in one of his letters, viz. Epist. 90. part two to someone for guiding his son) based on Aristotelian principles of philosophy. He completed a full course of this study at the age of seventeen in the schools of Flexia, or La Flesche, a town in the province of Anjou, which is notable for the college of Jesuits established there by Henry the 4th.

But to this he did not Continue long devoted, giving early testimonies of his dislike to the unsatisfactory Notions, and verbose emptiness of the Peripatetick Philosophy; He used therefore his utmost endeavours (as he himself testifies in his Dissertatio de Methodo) to get loose from those Chains and Fetters of Mind to which the weakness of his tender years had subjected him.

But he didn't stay committed to that for long, quickly showing his dislike for the unsatisfying ideas and wordy nonsense of the Peripatetic Philosophy. So he made every effort (as he himself states in his Dissertation on Method) to free himself from the mental chains and restrictions that his youthful naivety had put on him.

To this end he betook himself to a long course of Travel, that by the variety of Objects, which he was likely to meet with in his journeys, the memory of his past Notions might be blotted out; In his travel he applied himself much to the study of the Art Military, and Mathematicks; In the latter he has left the World large testimonies of his Excellence in his Book of Geometry; and in the former we have reason to believe him most expert, for He was personally present at some Sieges and Battles both in France and Germany, as particularly at the Siege of Rochel, of Gava near Genoa, of Breda, at the Battle of Prague, &c. so that we may conclude that he had a Genius fitted (according to the Motto of the noble Sir W. Raliegh) Tam Marti, quam Mercurio, For the Pike as well as Pen. And as the Glorious Roman Emperour became a Cæsar by his Book as well as Sword, by the Conquests of his mind as well as those of his arm; so our Famous Author was Ex Utroque Clarus.

To achieve this, he dedicated himself to a long journey, hoping that the variety of experiences he encountered would erase the memories of his past ideas. During his travels, he focused a lot on studying military strategy and mathematics. In the latter, he left behind a significant legacy with his Geometry Book; and in terms of military expertise, we have good reason to believe he was highly skilled. He personally participated in several sieges and battles in France and Germany, particularly at the Siege of Rochel, at Gava near Genoa, at Breda, and in the Battle of Prague, among others. This leads us to conclude that he had a talent suited, as the noble Sir Walter Raleigh put it, Tam Marti, quam Mercurio, for both the spear and the pen. Just as the glorious Roman Emperor became a Caesar through his writings as much as his sword, through the conquests of his mind as well as those of his arm, so our renowned author was Ex Utroque Clarus.

In his Travels he spent many years, in all which time he was not Idle, but highly improved himself by his converse with the Beaux Esprits, which he met with in several Regions he visited; The first Place he betook himself to, was Italy, then he went into Denmark, Germany, Hungary, &c. And after a Long but advantagious Peregrination he return’d to Amsterdam, where he intended to take up his Rest, had he not been called by the French King upon very Honourable terms to Paris; During his Continuance there he so order’d his annual Revenue, that he might be supplied by the hands of a Friend wherever he was. He staid at Paris three years, and then retired Himself to a solitary village in Holland called Egmond, where he lived twenty five years, during which time he apply’d himself wholly to the Restauration of true Philosophy, wherein he gave the World such mighty testimonies of his Excellence, that in a short time he became celebrated in the mouths of all Learned Men. Neither were the Courts of Princes silent in his deserved Praises; for after a Retirement of twenty five years he was Invited by Christina Queen of Sweedland to her Court; Thither upon the intreaty of this brave and Learned Princess he betook himself, where he had not continued Long before he was struck with a Peripneumonia or Inflammation of the Lungs (contracted, as it is thought by the long Discourses which he used to hold bare headed with the Queen, continuing them sometimes till far in the Night,) of which unhappy distemper he Died the seventh Day after he sicken’d.

In his travels, he spent many years, during which he was not idle but greatly improved himself through conversations with the Beautiful Minds he encountered in various regions he visited. The first place he went to was Italy, then he traveled to Denmark, Germany, Hungary, etc. After a long but beneficial journey, he returned to Amsterdam, where he planned to settle down, had he not been summoned by the French King on very honorable terms to Paris. During his time there, he arranged his annual revenue so that he could be supported by a friend wherever he was. He stayed in Paris for three years and then withdrew to a quiet village in Netherlands called Egmond, where he lived for twenty-five years, dedicating himself entirely to the restoration of true philosophy. His remarkable works gave the world such strong evidence of his excellence that he quickly became celebrated among learned men. The courts of princes also praised him; after retiring for twenty-five years, he was invited by Christina, Queen of Sweden, to her court. At the request of this brave and learned princess, he went there, but he had not been there long before he fell ill with pneumonia or lung inflammation (which is thought to have been caused by his long discussions with the queen while bareheaded, often continuing late into the night) and tragically died seven days after he became sick.

Thus Expired this Wonder of his Own and succeeding Ages, desired and lamented by all men, Æqual’d by none. He was buried in a costly Monument consisting of four sides, upon which were inscribed Epitaphs; bestow’d upon him by many Renown’d Persons.

Thus ended this marvel of his time and those that followed, wanted and mourned by everyone, unmatched by anyone. He was laid to rest in an elaborate monument with four sides, which had epitaphs inscribed on them; given to him by many famous people.

What shall we now say sufficient to express our Grief for the untimely Decease of this Worthy Philosopher? But Especially what shall we now do to recover our Loss? Let us endeavour to Redeem what we have lost by well Husbanding and careful improvement of what is left; which may be done in Part by a Diligent Perusal of the Works written by this Excellent Author; This, This only is the way of Reviving him again, and of giving him Immortality in spight of his untimely Fate. And so let him for ever live celebrated by the Deserved Praises of all ingenious Enquirers after truth, and Learning.

What can we say to express our grief for the untimely death of this worthy philosopher? But more importantly, what can we do to make up for our loss? Let's try to recover what we’ve lost by wisely managing and carefully improving what we still have; this can be partly achieved by diligently reading the works written by this excellent author. This, and only this, is the way to bring him back in spirit and grant him immortality despite his untimely fate. So let him live forever, celebrated by the deserved praises of all those who seek truth and knowledge.

Let us therefore cast our eye upon the Present Work of this extroardinary Philosopher, and therein let us admire his profound Judgment and vigorous Fancy, for if we seriously consider it, we shall hardly find a more solid close piece of Reasoning either in this or Foregoing ages; Here, what was commonly asserted without proof, is not only proved but Mathematically Demonstrated, viz. That God is the Fountain and Original of Truth; His sharp Wit, like Hannibals Vinegar, hath eaten thro the Mazing and overtowring hills of Errors, a Plain and Pleasant Way to the Divine seat of Knowledge.

Let’s take a look at the work of this extraordinary philosopher and admire his deep insight and creative thinking. If we think about it seriously, we’ll struggle to find more solid reasoning in either this age or the previous ones. Here, what was often claimed without evidence is not only proven but Math-wise demonstrated, namely that God is the source and origin of truth.; his sharp intellect has sliced through the maze and towering hills of errors, creating a clear and enjoyable path to the divine seat of knowledge.

In fine, such is the Excellence of these six Meditations, that I cannot resemble his Performance herein better than to the Six Days Work of the Supream Architect; and certainly next to the Creation of All things out of Nothing, the Restauration of Truth out of Errors is the most Divine Work; so that (with Reverence be it spoken) the Incomparable Des-Cartes does hereby deserve as it were the name of a Creatour. In the first Meditation we are Presented with a Rude and Indigested Chaos of Errours and Doubts, till the Divine spirit of the Noble Des-Cartes (pardon the Boldness of the Expression) moves upon the confused face of these Waters, and thereout produces some clear and distinct Light; by which Sun-shine he proceeds to bring forth and cherish other Branches of Truth; Till at last by a six Days Labour he Establishes this Fair Fabrick (as I may call it) of the Intellectual World on foundations that shall never be shaken. Then sitting down with rest and satisfaction he looks upon this his Off-spring and Pronounces it Good.

In summary, the greatness of these six Meditations is such that I can best compare his work here to the Six Days of Creation by the Supreme Architect. Certainly, apart from creating everything out of nothing, restoring truth from errors is the most divine task; so that (with all due respect) the incomparable Descartes truly deserves the title of a Creator. In the first Meditation, we are confronted with a rough and chaotic mix of errors and doubts, until the divine spirit of the noble Descartes (forgive my boldness) moves across the troubled waters and brings forth some clear and unique light; through this sunlight, he goes on to cultivate and nurture other branches of truth; until finally, through six days of labor, he establishes this beautiful structure (as I might call it) of the intellectual community on foundations that will never be shaken. Then, sitting down with rest and satisfaction, he looks upon his creation and declares it good.

These Things Consider’d, I need not make any long Apologies for my undertaking a translation thereof; The excellency of the Original is sufficient to vindicate my endeavours to present the English World with a Copy, and he that shall blame my Intentions of Communicating the Methods of Truth to those that have only the English Tongue, may as well find fault with those English that propagate the Christian Religion among savage Indians, and translate the Scriptures into their Language, because they have not the English Tongue. To understand Latin is no (or at most a very small) part of Learning, and that which certainly every Cobler in Rome was once endow’d with; and therefore must there then be no translations out of Greek into Latin? I doubt not, but there are many Persons in our Nations, who tho wanting Latin, are notwithstanding very capable of the most abstracted speculations; the late disturbances of our Kingdomes occasion’d many Youths, who were then in a fair way of Instruction, to forsake their learning, and divert their intentions from Literature to Arms, and yet many of these have afterwards become Men of extraordinary nary abilities and qualifications for learning notwithstanding their deficiency in the Roman Tongue. And I see no Reason why it should not be the desire, and consequently the endeavour of every true English man, to make his language as universal as is now the French, into which the best Books in all sorts of Learning, both Poetry and Prose, are daily translated out of all languages, but especially out of Greek and Latine. Among which these Meditations are to be found, entituled, Les Meditations Metaphysiques De Rene Des Cartes touchant la Premiere Philosophie. This was translated out of the Authors Latine into French by Monsieur le D. D. L. N. S. The several Objections also, which were made by divers learned Persons against these Meditations, with the Authors Answers, were translated into French by M. B. L. R. And, I hope, no one will assert, that the French are more fit to receive those metaphysical Notions delivered herein than the English Nation.

Given these considerations, I don't need to make any lengthy apologies for my decision to translate it; the quality of the original is enough to justify my efforts to provide the English-speaking world with a version. Anyone who criticizes my intention to share the methods of truth with those who only speak English might as well criticize those English speakers who spread Christianity among Indigenous peoples and translate the Scriptures into their languages, simply because they don't speak English. Understanding Latin is not (or at most, is a very minor) part of learning, something that every cobbler in Rome once had. So, should there be no translations from Greek to Latin? I have no doubt that there are many people in our nations who, despite lacking knowledge of Latin, are still very capable of the most abstract thoughts. The recent upheavals in our kingdoms caused many young people, who were on the path to education, to abandon their studies and redirect their focus from literature to warfare. Yet many of these individuals have later become remarkable scholars despite their lack of mastery in the Roman language. I see no reason why it shouldn't be the goal, and therefore the effort, of every true Englishman to make his language as universal as the French, into which the best books in all fields of learning, both poetry and prose, are translated daily from all languages, especially Greek and Latin. Among these is a work titled The Metaphysical Meditations of René Descartes on First Philosophy. This was translated from the author's Latin into French by Mr. D. D. L. N. S. The various objections raised by several learned individuals against these Meditations, along with the author’s responses, were translated into French by M.B.L.R. And I hope no one will claim that the French are more suited to grasp these metaphysical concepts presented here than the English nation.

But ’twas none of the smallest motives I had to this undertaking, that tho some famous English Authours have taken notice of the Arguments here produced (for the proof of a Deity drawn from the Idea we have of God in our Mind, &c.) Particularly the most excellent and learned Dr. Stillingfleet in the first Chapter of the third Book in his Origines Sacræ, who refers his Readers to a further search into these Meditations in the 400 page of that Discourse; as also the Reverend Dr. Henry More in his Antidote against Atheism, and more fully in his Appendix annex’d thereto, hath treated of our Authors demonstration; and yet nothing of the genuine original from whence they have borrowed all their Copies (tho some of them drawn in a larger size, yet I question whether so expressive) nothing of our Authors proper management hath ever appear’d in English. Those that assert these Arguments to have been long before thought upon by some of the Fathers, I shall refer to our Authors just vindication of himself in his several Answers to Objections made against these Discourses.

But it wasn’t just the smallest reasons that motivated me to take on this project. Some well-known English authors have acknowledged the arguments presented here (for proving a God based on the Concept we have of God in our minds, among other things). Notably, the esteemed and learned Dr. Stillingfleet in the first chapter of the third book of his Sacred Origins, who points his readers toward a deeper investigation into these thoughts in the 400 pages of that work; as well as the Reverend Dr. Henry More in his Counter to Atheism, and more extensively in his Appendix attached to it, has discussed our author’s demonstration. Yet, nothing of the genuine original from which they derived all their versions (even though some are presented in a larger format, I wonder if they are as expressive) and nothing regarding our author’s unique handling has ever appeared in English. Those who claim that these arguments were already considered by some of the Fathers should refer to our author’s proper defense of himself in his various responses to objections raised against these discourses.

And here I shall dismiss the Reader detaining him no longer from that satisfaction which he may reasonably expect from the perusal of the following Meditations; this Translation is dedicated to no one in particular, but is humbly submitted to the moderate censure of all candid Readers, by

And now I’ll let the Reader go, without keeping him from the enjoyment he can reasonably expect from reading the following Meditations; this Translation isn’t dedicated to anyone in particular but is respectfully offered for the fair judgment of all thoughtful Readers, by

Their humble servant
Will. Molyneux.

Their loyal servant
Will. Molyneux.

Dublin Feb. 19. 1679/80.

Dublin Feb. 19, 1679/80.


The Contents.

Meditation 1. Of Things Doubtful. Pag. 1.
Meditat. 2. Of the Nature of Mans Mind, and that ’tis easier Proved to Be then our Body. p. 11.
Meditat. 3. Of God, and that there Is a God. p. 27.
Meditat. 4. Of Truth and Falshood. p. 55.
Meditat. 5. Of the Essence of Things Material, and herein again of God, and that He does Exist. p. 70.
Meditat. 6. Of Corporeal Beings and their Existence, as also of the Real Difference between Mind and Body. p. 83.
Objections and Answers. p. 155.

ERRATA.

Pag. 1. line 8. dele off. p. 3. l. 21. there wants the sign of Interrogation. p. 8. l. 10. r. Premeditated. ib. l. 14. r. falshoods. p. 18. l. 15. r. that it may. p. 20. l. 11. r. suffers. In the two or three first chapters there are Astericks wanting. p. 33. l. 10. dele I. p. 39. l. 25. r. formally. p. 49. l. 14 r. Duration and Continuance. p. 54. l. 2 for the Point put a Comma. p. 61. l. ult. r. I enquire. p. 91. r. in the margin doubted. p. 124. l. 6. r. have no affinity.

Pag. 1. line 8. delete off. p. 3. l. 21. missing the question mark. p. 8. l. 10. r. Premeditated. ib. l. 14. r. falsehoods. p. 18. l. 15. r. that it may. p. 20. l. 11. r. suffers. In the first two or three chapters, there are Asterisks missing. p. 33. l. 10. delete I. p. 39. l. 25. r. formally. p. 49. l. 14 r. Duration and Continuance. p. 54. l. 2 replace the point with a comma. p. 61. l. last. r. I inquire. p. 91. r. in the margin doubted. p. 124. l. 6. r. have no connection.

Transcriber’s Note: These errata have been corrected, along with some obvious typos. The spelling in this book is not only of its time, but also wildly variable, and has been left well alone.

Transcriber’s Note: These errors have been fixed, along with some obvious typos. The spelling in this book reflects its time and is quite inconsistent, so it has been left as is.


[1]

[1]

THE
Metaphysical Meditations
OF
Renatus Des-Cartes, &c.


Meditate. I.
Of Things Doubtful.

Some years past I perceived how many Falsities I admitted as Truths in my Younger years, and how Dubious those things were which I raised from thence; and therefore I thought it requisite (if I had a designe to establish any thing that should prove firme and permanent in sciences) that once in my life I should clearly cast aside all my former opinions, and begin a new from some First principles. But this seemed a great Task, and I still[2] expected that maturity of years, then which none could be more apt to receive Learning; upon which Account I waited so long, that at last I should deservedly be blamed had I spent that time in Deliberation which remain’d only for Action.

Some years ago, I realized how many lies I accepted as truths when I was younger, and how doubtful those things were that I built upon them. Because of this, I thought it necessary (if I wanted to establish something that would be solid and lasting in the sciences) to set aside all my previous opinions at least once in my life and start fresh from some first principles. However, this seemed like a huge task, and I still [2] hoped that with the maturity that comes with age, which is the best time to learn, I would be able to do it. I ended up waiting so long that I would rightly be criticized for spending that time in deliberation when it was only meant for action.

This day therefore I conveniently released my mind from all cares, I procured to my self a Time Quiet, and free from all Business, I retired my self Alone; and now at length will I freely and seriously apply my self to the General overthrow of all my former Opinions.

This day, I decided to free my mind from all worries. I made sure to find a quiet time, away from all business, and I took time for myself alone. Now, at last, I will fully and seriously focus on completely rethinking all my previous beliefs.

To the Accomplishment of Which, it will not be necessary for me to prove them all false (for that perhaps I shall never atcheive) But because my reason perswades me, that I must withdraw my assent no less from those opinions which seem not so very certain and undoubted, then I should from those that are Apparently false, it will be sufficient if I reject all those wherein I find any Occasion of doubt.

To achieve this, I don't need to prove them all false (which I might never accomplish). However, my reasoning leads me to believe that I must withdraw my agreement not just from those opinions that seem not so very certain and undoubted, but also from those that are Apparently false. It will be enough for me to reject all those where I find any Occasion for doubt.

Neither to effect this is it necessary, that they all should be run over particularly (which would be an endles trouble) but because the Foundation being once[3] undermin’d, whatever is built thereon will of its own accord come to the ground, I shall therefore immediately assault the very principle, on which whatever I have believed was grounded. Viz.

Neither is it necessary to go through each point in detail (which would be an endless hassle), but because the Foundation, once undermined, will cause whatever is built on it to collapse on its own, I will therefore directly challenge the very principle on which everything I have believed was grounded. That is.

Whatever I have hitherto admitted as most true, that I received either from, or by my Senses; but these I have often found to deceive me, and ’tis prudence never certainly to trust those that I have (tho but once) deceived us.

Everything I've previously accepted as true, I've gotten from my senses, but I've often discovered that they can be misleading. It's wise not to fully trust those that have misled me, even if it was just once.

1 Doubt. But tho sometimes the senses deceive us being exercised about remote or small objects, yet there are many other things of which we cannot doubt tho we know them only by the senses? as that at present I am in this place, that I am sitting by a fire, that I have a Winter gown on me, that I feel this Paper with my hands; But how can it be denied that these hands or this body is mine? Unless I should compare my self to those mad men, whose brains are disturbed by such a disorderly melancholick vapour, that makes them continually profess themselves to be Kings, tho they are very poor, or fancy themselves cloathed in Purple Robes, tho they are naked, or that their[4] heads are made of Clay as a bottle, or of glass, &c. But these are mad men, and I should be as mad as they in following their example by fancying these things as they do.

1 Doubt. But while our senses can sometimes deceive us when focused on distant or small things, there are many other aspects we can't doubt, even though we only know them through our senses. Like the fact that I'm here right now, that I'm sitting by a fire, that I'm wearing a winter gown, and that I can feel this paper with my hands. But how can anyone deny that these hands or this body is mine? Unless I were to compare myself to those insane individuals whose minds are disturbed by a chaotic melancholic fog, leading them to claim they are kings despite being very poor, or to believe they are dressed in purple robes when they are actually naked, or that their[4] heads are made of clay like a bottle or made of glass, &c. But those are insane people, and I would be just as mad as them if I followed their example by imagining things the way they do.

1 Solution. This truly would seem very clear to those that never sleep, and suffer the same things (and sometimes more unlikely) in their repose, then these mad men do whilst they are awake; for how often am I perswaded in a Dream of these usual occurrences, that I am in this place, that I have a Gown on me, that I am sitting by a fire, &c. Tho all the while I am lying naked between the Sheets.

1 Solution. This really seems pretty obvious to those who never sleep and experience the same things (and sometimes even crazier ones) in their rest as these madmen do while they’re awake; because how often am I convinced in a dream of these usual things, that I’m in this place, that I’m wearing a gown, that I’m sitting by a fire, &c. Even though all the while I’m lying naked between the sheets.

But now I am certain that I am awake and look upon this Paper, neither is this head which I shake asleep, I knowingly and willingly stretch out this hand, and am sensible that things so distinct could not happen to one that sleeps. As if I could not remember my self to have been deceived formerly in my sleep by the like thoughts; which while I consider more attentively I am so far convinced of the difficulty of distinguishing sleep from waking that I am amazed, and this very amazement almost perswades me that I am asleep.

But now I’m sure that I’m awake and looking at this paper; my head that I shake isn’t asleep either. I’m knowingly and willingly stretching out this hand, and I’m aware that such distinct things couldn’t happen to someone who’s sleeping. It’s like I can’t forget that I’ve been tricked in my sleep by similar thoughts before. As I think about this more, I realize how hard it is to tell sleep from wakefulness, which amazes me, and this very amazement almost convinces me that I’m asleep.

[5]

[5]

2 Doubt. Wherefore let us suppose our selves asleep, and that these things are not true, viz. that we open our eyes, move our heads, stretch our hands, and perhaps that we have no such things as hands or a body. Yet we must confess, that what we see in a Dream is (as it were) a painted Picture, which cannot be devised but after the likeness of some real thing; and that therefore these Generals at least, viz. eyes, head, hands, and the whole body are things really existent and not imaginary; For Painters themselves, (even then when they design Mermaids and Satyrs in the most unusual shapes) do not give them natures altogether new, but only add the divers Parts of different Animals together; And if by chance they invent any thing so new that nothing was ever seen like it, for that ’tis wholy fictitious and false, yet the colours at least of which, they make it must be true Colours; so upon the same account, tho these General things as eyes, head, hands, &c. may be imaginary; yet nevertheless we must of necessity confess the more simple and universal things to be True, of which (as of true Colours) these Images of things (whether[6] true or false) which are in our minds are made; such as are the nature of a body in General, and its Extension, also the shape of things extended, with the quantity or bigness of them; their number also, and place wherein they are, the time in which they continue, and the like, and therefore from hence we make no bad conclusion, that Physick, both Natural, and Medicinal, Astronomy, and all other sciences, which depend on the consideration of compound things, are Doubtful. But that Arithmetick, Geometry, and the like (which treat only of the most simple, and General things not regarding whether they really are or not) have in them something certain and undoubted; for whether I sleep or wake, two and three added make five; a square has no more sides than four &c. neither seems it possible what such plain truths can be doubted off.

2 Doubt. So let's imagine we're asleep and that these things aren't true, like the fact that we open our eyes, move our heads, stretch our hands, and maybe even that we don't have hands or a body at all. Still, we have to admit that what we see in a dream is, in a sense, a painted picture that can only be created based on the likeness of something real; which means that at least these basic things like eyes, head, hands, and the whole body actually exist and aren't imaginary. Even painters, when they draw mermaids and satyrs in the most unusual shapes, don’t create entirely new natures; they just combine different parts of various animals. And if they happen to invent something so unique that nothing like it has ever been seen, it’s still completely fictitious and false, but at least the colors they use must be true colors. So for the same reason, though these general things like eyes, head, hands, &c. might be imaginary, we still have to acknowledge that the more simple and universal things are true, making up, as it were, the images of things (whether true or false) in our minds. These include the nature of a body in general, its extension, the shape of extended things, their size, their number, their location, the time they last, and similar concepts. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that physics, both natural and medicinal, astronomy, and all other sciences that depend on understanding compound things are doubtful. However, arithmetic, geometry, and similar subjects (which only deal with the most simple and general things, without worrying about whether they really exist or not) have something certain and undoubted in them; because whether I’m asleep or awake, two and three added together make five; a square has no more sides than four, &c. and it doesn’t seem possible for anyone to doubt such plain truths.

2 Solution. But all this While there is rooted in my mind a certain old opinion of the being of an Omnipotent God, by whom I am created in the state I am in; and how know I but he caused that there should be no Earth, no Heaven, no Body, no Figure, no Magnitude, no Place,[7] and yet that all these things should seem to me to be as now they are? And as I very often judge others to Erre about those things which they think they Throughly understand, so why may not I be deceived, whenever I add two and three, or count the sides of a Square, or whatever other easy Matter can be thought of?

2 Solution. But all of this is rooted in my mind by an old belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God, who created me in my current state; and how do I know that He didn't cause there to be no Earth, no Heaven, no Body, no Shape, no Size, no Place,[7] yet that all these things seem to me to exist as they do? And just as I often judge others to be wrong about things they believe they thoroughly understand, why shouldn't I be deceived every time I add two and three, or count the sides of a Square, or any other simple matter that comes to mind?

3. Doubt. But perhaps God wills not that I should be deceived, for he is said to be Infinitely Good.

3. Doubt. But maybe God doesn't want me to be deceived, because He is said to be Infinitely Good.

3. Solution. Yet if it were Repugnant to his Goodness to create me so that I should be always deceived, it seems also unagreeable to his Goodness to permit me to be deceived at any time; Which last no one will affirme: Some there are truely who had rather deny Gods Omnipotence, then beleive all things uncertain; but there at present we may not contradict. And we will suppose all this of God to be false; yet whether they will suppose me to become what I am by Fate, by Chance, by a continued chain of causes, or any other way, because to erre is an Imperfection, by how much the less power they will Assigne to the Author of my Being, so much the[8] more Probable it will be, that I am so Imperfect as to be alwayes deceived.

3. Solution. If it would be repugnant to His goodness to create me in a way that I would always be deceived, it also seems unacceptable to His goodness to allow me to be deceived at any time; which no one will deny. There are some who would rather reject God's omnipotence than believe in everything being uncertain; but we shouldn't argue that point right now. Even if we assume all this about God is false, the question remains whether they think I became who I am through fate, chance, a continuous chain of causes, or in some other way. Because to err is an imperfection, the less power they assign to the author of my being, the more likely it becomes that I am so imperfect as to be always deceived.

To which Arguments I know not what to answer but am forced to confess, that there is nothing of all those things which I formerly received as Truths, whereof at present I may not doubt; and this doubt shall not be grounded on inadvertency or Levity, but upon strong and Premeditated reasons; and therefore I must hereafter (if I designe to discover any truths) withdraw my assent from them no less then from apparent falshoods.

To the arguments I don’t know how to respond, I can only admit that there’s nothing among those things I once accepted as truths that I can't now doubt; and this doubt isn't based on carelessness or frivolity, but on solid and thoughtful reasons. Therefore, if I aim to find any truths, I must withhold my agreement from them just as much as I do from obvious falsehoods.

But ’tis not sufficient to think only Transiently on these things, but I must take care to remember them; for dayly my old opinions returne upon me, and much against my Will almost possesse my Beleife tyed to them, as it were by a continued use and Right of Familiarity; neither shall I ever cease to assent and trust in them, whilst I suppose them as in themselves they really are, that is to say, something doubtful (as now I have proved) yet notwithstanding highly Probable, which it is much more Reasonable to beleive then disbeleive.

But it’s not enough to just think briefly about these things; I have to make sure to remember them. Every day, my old beliefs come back to me, and despite my efforts, they almost take over my faith, as if they’re bound to it by a constant familiarity. I won’t ever stop agreeing with and trusting them, as long as I see them as they truly are—something uncertain (as I’ve proven now)—but still highly probable, which makes it much more reasonable to believe than to disbelieve.

[9]

[9]

Wherefore I conceive I should not do amiss, if (with my mind bent clearly to the contrary side) I should deceive my self, and suppose them for a While altogether false and Imaginary; till at length the Weights of prejudice being equal in each scale, no ill custome may any more Draw my Judgement from the true Conception of things, for I know from hence will follow no dangerous Error, and I can’t too immoderately pamper my own Incredulity, seeing What I am about, concernes not Practice but Speculation.

So I think it wouldn’t be a mistake if I, with my mind clearly focused on the opposite side, deceived myself and assumed for a while that they are completely false and imaginary; until eventually, the weights of bias are equal in both scales, and no bad habit can pull my judgment away from the true conception of things. I know that no dangerous errors will follow from this, and I can’t excessively indulge my own skepticism, since what I’m dealing with concerns not practice but speculation.

To Which end I will suppose, not an Infinitely perfect God, the Fountain of truth, but that some Evil Spirit which is very Powerful and crafty has used all his endeavours to deceive me; I will conceive, the Heavens, Air, Earth, Colours, Figures, Sounds, and all outward things are nothing else but the delusions of Dreams, by which he has laid snares to catch my easy beleif; I will consider my self as not having hands, Eyes, Flesh, Blood, or Sences, but that I falsely think that I have all these; I will continue firmly in this Meditation; and tho it lyes not in my power to discover any truth, yet[10] this is in my power, not to assent to Falsities, and with a strong resolution take care that the Mighty deceiver (tho never so powerful or cunning) impose not any thing on my beleife.

To that end, I will imagine not an infinitely perfect God, the source of truth, but rather that some evil spirit who is very powerful and crafty has used all his efforts to deceive me. I will think of the heavens, air, earth, colors, shapes, sounds, and all external things as nothing but the illusions of dreams, through which he has set traps to catch my easy belief. I will consider myself as not having hands, eyes, flesh, blood, or senses, but that I mistakenly believe that I have all these. I will remain firm in this meditation, and while it may not be in my power to discover any truth, it is within my power not to agree with falsehoods, and with a strong determination, I will ensure that the mighty deceiver (no matter how powerful or cunning) does not impose anything on my belief.

But this is a laborious intention, and a certain sloth reduces me to the usual course of life, and like a Prisoner who in his sleep perhaps enjoy’d an imaginary liberty, and when he begins to suppose that he is asleep is afraid to waken, but is willing to be deceived by the Pleasant delusion; so I willingly fall into my opinions, and am afraid to be Roused, least a toilsome waking succeeding a pleasant rest I may hereafter live not in the light, but in the confused darkness of the doubts now raised.

But this is a tiring goal, and a certain laziness pulls me back into my usual routine, like a prisoner who, in his sleep, might enjoy a dream of freedom. When he starts to think he’s awake, he’s scared to fully wake up and is happy to be tricked by the Pleasant delusion; so I willingly cling to my beliefs and fear being shaken awake, worried that a difficult reality following a nice dream might leave me living not in the light, but in the confused darkness of the doubts that I’m now facing.


[11]

[11]

Meditation. II.
About the nature of the human mind, and that ’tis easier proved to be then our body.

By yesterdays Meditation I am cast into so great Doubts, that I shall never forget them, and yet I know not how to answer them, but being plunged on a suddain into a deep Gulf, I am so amazed that I can neither touch the bottome, nor swim at the top.

By yesterday's reflection, I'm thrown into such deep Doubts that I’ll never forget them, and I still don’t know how to respond. It’s like I’ve suddenly been plunged into a deep abyss, and I’m so bewildered that I can neither reach the bottom nor swim at the surface.

Nevertheless, I will endeavour once more, and try the way I set on yesterday, by removing from me whatever is in the least doubtful, as if I had certainly discover’d it to be altogether false, and will proceed till I find out some certainty, or if nothing else, yet at least this certainty, That there is nothing sure.

Nevertheless, I will make another attempt and follow the path I started yesterday, by getting rid of anything that is even slightly questionable, as if I’ve definitely found it to be completely false, and I will continue until I uncover some certainty, or if nothing else, at least this certainty: that there is nothing certain.

Archimedes required but a point which was firm, and immoveable that he might move the whole Earth, so in the perfect undertaking Great things may be expected,[12] if I can discover but the least thing that is true and indisputable.

Archimedes needed just a point that was stable and unmoving to move the entire Earth. In a perfect endeavor, great things can be anticipated,[12] if I can find even the smallest thing that is true and undeniable.

Wherefore I suppose all things I see are false, and believe that nothing of those things are really existent, which my deceitful memory represents to me; ’tis evident I have no senses, that a Body, Figure, Extension, Motion, Place, &c. are meer Fictions; what thing therefore is there that is true? perhaps only this, That there is nothing certain.

So I guess that everything I see is false, and I believe that none of the things my deceptive memory shows me really exist; it’s clear that I have no senses, and that Body, Shape, Space, Movement, Place, &c. are just empty ideas. So, what is there that is true? Maybe just this: That nothing is certain.

Doubts and Solutions.

But how know I that there is nothing distinct from all these things (which I have now reckon’d) of which I have no reason to doubt? Is there no God (or whatever other name I may call him) who has put these thoughts into me? Yet why should I think this? When I my self perhaps am the Author of them. Upon which Account, therefore must not I be something? ’tis but just now that I denied that I had any senses, or any Body. Hold a while—Am I so tied to a Body and senses that I cannot exist without them? But I have perswaded my self that there is nothing in the World, no Heaven, no Earth, no Souls, no Bodies; and then why not, that I my self am not?[13] Yet surely if I could perswade my self any thing, I was.

But how do I know that there’s nothing distinct from all these things (which I’ve just mentioned) that I have no reason to doubt? Is there no God (or whatever other name I might call Him) who has put these thoughts in my mind? Yet why should I think this? Perhaps I am the Author of them myself. Therefore, shouldn't I be something? It was just a moment ago that I denied having any senses or any Body. Wait a minute—Am I so bound to a Body and senses that I cannot exist without them? But I’ve convinced myself that there is nothing in the world, no Heaven, no Earth, no Souls, no Bodies; so why not think that I my self am not?[13] Yet surely if I could convince myself of anything, I existed.

But there is I know not what sort of Deceivour very powerful and very crafty, who always strives to deceive Me; without Doubt therefore I am, if he can decieve me; And let him Deceive me as much as he can, yet he can never make me not to Be, whilst I think that I am. Wherefore I may lay this down as a Principle, that whenever this sentence I am, I exist, is spoken or thought of by Me, ’tis necessarily True.

But there is, I don’t know what kind of deceiver—very powerful and very crafty—who always tries to deceive me. Therefore, without a doubt, I exist if he can deceive me. And let him deceive me as much as he can; he can never make me not exist while I think that I do. So, I can establish this as a principle: whenever I say or think the sentence "I am," it is necessarily true.

But I do not yet fully understand who I am that now necessarily exist, and I must hereafter take care, least I foolishly mistake some other thing for my self, and by that means be deceived in that thought, which I defend as the most certain and evident of all.

But I still don't fully understand who I am now that I exist, and I need to be careful not to confuse something else for myself, and in doing so, be misled by that idea, which I argue is the most certain and obvious of all.

Wherefore I will again Recollect, what I believed my self to be heretofore, before I had set upon these Meditations, from which Notion I will withdraw whatever may be Disproved by the Foremention’d Reasons, that in the End, That only may Remain which is True and indisputable.

Therefore, I will once again think about what I believed I was in the past, before I started these reflections. From that understanding, I will remove anything that can be disproven by the reasons I mentioned earlier, so that in the end, only what is true and undeniable may remain.

[14]

[14]

What therefore have I heretofore thought my self? A Man. But what is a man? Shall I answer, a Rational Animal? By no means; because afterwards it may be asked, what an Animal is? and what Rational is? And so from one question I may fall into greater Difficulties; neither at present have I so much time as to spend it about such Niceties.

What have I thought of myself until now? A Man. But what is a man? Should I say, a Rational Animal? Absolutely not; because then it raises the question of what an Animal is and what Rational means. So from one question, I could end up in bigger Difficulties; and right now, I don't have the time to get into those details.

But I shall rather here Consider, what heretofore represented it self to my thoughts freely, and naturally, whenever I set my self to understand What I my self was.

But I would rather consider here what has previously presented itself to my thoughts freely and naturally whenever I try to understand Who I actually am.

And the first thing I find Representing it self is, that I have Face, Hands, Arms, and this whole frame of parts which is seen in my Body, and which I call my Body.

And the first thing I notice about myself is that I have a Face, Hands, Arms, and this entire frame of parts that I see in my Body, which I refer to as my Body.

The next thing represented to me was, that I was nourish’d, could walk, had senses, and could Think; which functions I attributed to my Soul. Yet what this soul of mine was, I did not fully conceive; or else supposed it a small thing like wind, or fire, or aire, infused through my stronger parts.

The next thing that came to my mind was that I was nourished, could walk, had senses, and could think; I attributed these abilities to my soul. But what this soul of mine actually was, I couldn’t fully grasp; I either thought of it as something small like wind, fire, or air, flowing through my stronger parts.

As to my Body truly I doubted not,[15] but that I rightly understood its Nature, which (if I should endeavour to describe as I conceive it) I should thus Explain, viz. By a Body I mean whatever is capable of Shape, or can be contained in a place, and so fill’s a space that it excludes all other Bodys out of the same, that which may be touch’d, seen, heard, tasted, or smelt, and that which is capable of various Motions and Modifications, not from it self, but from any other thing moving it, for I judged it against (or rather above) the nature of a Body to move it self, or perceive, or think, But rather admired that I should find these Operations in certain Bodys.

As for my Body, I truly had no doubt,[15] that I understood its Nature correctly, which I will describe as I see it. To put it simply, by Body, I mean anything that is capable of having a Shape, or can be contained in a place, thereby filling a space that excludes all other Bodys from that space. It is something that can be touched, seen, heard, tasted, or smelled, and is capable of various Motions and Modifications, not from itself, but from any other thing moving it. I believed it was against (or rather above) the nature of a Body to move itself, or perceive, or think. Instead, I was intrigued by finding these Operations present in certain Bodys.

But How now (since I suppose a certain powerful and (if it be lawful to call him so) evil deluder, who useth all his endeavours to deceive me in all things) can I affirme that I have any of those things, which I have now said belong to the nature of a Body? Hold— Let me Consider—, Let me think—, Let me reflect— I can find no Answer, and I am weary with repeating the same things over-again in vain.

But how can I say that I possess any of those things that I just mentioned belong to the nature of a body, especially since I believe there is a certain powerful and, if it's fair to call him this, evil deceiver who tries his hardest to mislead me in everything? Wait—let me think—let me reflect—I can’t find an answer, and I’m tired of saying the same things over and over for no reason.

[16]

[16]

But Which of these Faculties did I attribute to my Soul, my Nutritive, or Motive faculty? yet now seeing I have no Body, these also are meer delusions. Was it my sensitive faculty? But this also cannot be perform’d without a Body, and I have seem’d to perceive many things in my sleep, of which I afterwards understood my self not to be sensible. Was it my Cogitative Faculty? Here I have discovered it, ’tis my Thought, this alone cannot be separated from Me, I am, I exist,⸺tis true, but for what time Am I? Why I am as long as I think; For it May be that When I cease from thinking, I may cease from being. Now I admit of nothing but what is necessarily true: In short therefore I am only a thinking thing that is to say, a mind, or a soul, or understanding, or Reason, words which formerly I understood not; I am a Real thing, and Really Existent, But what sort of thing? I have just now said it, A thinking thing.

But which of these faculties did I attribute to my soul, my nutritive, or motive faculty? Now that I see I have no body, these are just mere delusions. Was it my sensitive faculty? But this also can't function without a body, and I seem to have perceived many things in my sleep that I later realized I was not sensible of. Was it my cognitive faculty? Here I've figured it out, it's my thought; this alone cannot be separated from me. I am, I exist—that's true—but for how long am I? I am as long as I think; it may be that when I stop thinking, I could cease to exist. Now, I accept nothing but what is necessarily true. In short, I am only a thinking thing, that is, a mind, or a soul, or understanding, or reason, words that I didn't understand before. I am a real thing, and really existent. But what kind of thing? I've just said it: a thinking thing.

* Places noted with their Asterisk are refer’d to in the following Objections.

But am I nothing besides? I will consider⸺I am not that structure of parts, which is called a Mans Body, neither am I[17] any sort of thin Air infused into those Parts, nor a Wind, nor Fire, nor Vapour, nor Breath, nor whatever I my self can feign, for all these things I have supposed not to Be. Yet my Position stands firm; Nevertheless I am something. Yet perhaps it so falls out that these very things which I suppose not to exist (because to me unknown) are in reallity nothing different from that very Self, which I know. I cannot tell, I dispute it not now, I can only give my opinion of those things whereof I have some knowledge. I am sure that I exist, I ask who I am whom I thus know, certainly, the knowledge, of Me (precisely taken) depends not on those things, whose existence I am yet ignorant of; and therefore not on any other things that I can feign by my imagination.

But am I nothing more? I will think about it—I am not that structure of parts called a human Body, nor am I[17] any kind of thin Air infused into those parts, nor a Wind, nor Fire, nor Vapor, nor Breath, nor anything I can come up with, because I have supposed all these things not to Be. Yet my stance remains strong; Nevertheless, I am something. But maybe it turns out that those very things I assume don’t exist (because they are unknown to me) are actually not different from that very Self which I do know. I can't say for sure; I’m not arguing that now, I can only share what I believe about things I do have some knowledge of. I know that I exist, and I ask who I am that I know like this. Certainly, the knowledge of Me (taken precisely) does not depend on those things whose existence I am still unaware of; therefore, it does not rely on any other things I can imagine.

And this very Word (feign) puts me in mind of my error, for I should feign in deed, if I should imagine my self any thing; for to imagine is nothing else but to think upon the shape or image of a corporeal thing; but now I certainly know that I am, and I know also that ’tis possible that all these images, and generally[18] whatever belongs to the Nature of a Body are nothing but deluding Dreams. Which things Consider’d I should be no less Foolish in saying, I will imagine that I may more throughly understand what I am, then if I should say, at Present I am awake and perceive something true, but because it appears not evidently enough, I shall endeavour to sleep, that in a Dream I may perceive it more evidently and truely.

And this very word (feign) reminds me of my error, because I would actually be feigning if I thought of myself as anything; to imagine is nothing more than thinking about the shape or image of a physical thing. But now I know for sure that I am, and I also know that it’s possible that all these images, and in general[18] whatever relates to the Nature of a Body are just deceptive Dreams. Given these thoughts, I would be just as foolish to say, I will imagine that I can understand what I am better, as if I were to say, right now I am awake and perceive something true, but because it isn’t evident enough, I will try to sleep so that in a Dream I can perceive it more clearly and truly.

Wherefore I know that nothing that I can comprehend by my imagination, can belong to the Notion I have of my self, and that I must carefully withdraw my mind from those things that it may more distinctly perceive its own Nature.

Wherefore I know that nothing I can understand through my imagination can relate to the Notion I have of myself, and that I must carefully steer my mind away from those things so it can more distinctly perceive its own Nature.

Let me ask therefore What I am, A Thinking Thing, but What is That? That is a thing, doubting, understanding, affirming, denying, willing, nilling, imagining also, and sensitive. These truely are not a few Properties, if they all belong to Me. And Why should they Not belong to me? For am not I the very same who at present doubt almost of All things; yet understand something, which thing onely I affirm to be true, I deny all other things, I am willing to know more, I would not be deceived, I[19] imagine many things unwillingly, and consider many things as coming to me by my senses. Which of all these faculties is it, which is not as true as that I Exist, tho I should sleep, or my Creatour should as much as in him lay, strive to deceive Me? which of them is it that is distinct from my thought? which of them is it that can be seperated from me? For that I am the same that doubt, understand, and will is so evident, that I know not how to explain it more manifestly, and that I also am the same that imagine, for tho perhaps (as I have supposed) no thing that can be imagined is true, yet the imaginative Power it self is really existent, and makes up a part of my Thought; and last of all that I am the same that am sensitive, or perceive corporeal things as by my senses, yet that I now see light, hear a noise, feel heat, these things are false, for I suppose my self asleep, but I know that I see, hear, and am heated, that cannot be false; and this it is that in me is properly called Sense, and this strictly taken is the same with thought.

Let me ask then, What am I? A Thinking Thing, but what does that mean? It's a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, imagines, and is also sensitive. These are not just a few Properties, if they all belong to me. And why shouldn't they belong to me? After all, I'm the same person who currently doubts almost everything; yet I understand something, which is the only thing I affirm to be true. I deny all other things, I'm willing to know more, I wouldn't want to be deceived, I imagine many things unwillingly, and I consider many things as coming to me through my senses. Which of all these faculties is not as true as my Existence, even if I should sleep, or my Creator should try as much as possible to deceive me? Which of them is distinct from my thought? Which of them can be separated from me? That I am the same who doubts, understands, and wills is so evident that I can't figure out how to explain it more clearly. I also know I am the same who imagines; for though perhaps (as I have suggested) nothing that can be imagined is true, the imaginative Power itself is real and is part of my Thought. Lastly, I am the one who is sensitive, or perceives physical things through my senses; yet now I see light, hear noise, and feel heat, and these things are false because I suppose I'm asleep, but I know that I see, hear, and am heated, which cannot be false; and this is what I call Sense, and this, when taken strictly, is the same as thought.

By these Considerations I begin a little better to understand My self what I am; But yet it seems, and I cannot but think that[20] Corporeal Things (whose Images are formed in my thought, and which by my senses, I perceive) are much more distinctly known, then that confused Notion of My Self which imagination cannot afford me. And yet ’tis strange that things doubtful, unknown, distinct from Me, should be apprehended more clearly by Me, then a Thing that is True, then a thing that is known, or then I my self; But the Reason is, that my Mind loves to wander, and suffers not it self to be bounded within the strict limits of Truth.

By considering these things, I'm starting to understand myself a bit better; however, it still seems to me, and I can't help but think that[20] physical things (whose images are created in my mind, and which I perceive through my senses) are much more clearly known than that confused idea of myself that imagination can't provide. It's strange that things that are doubtful, unknown, and separate from me can be understood more clearly by me than something that is true, than something that is known, or than I myself. The reason is that my mind loves to wander and doesn't allow itself to be confined within the strict boundaries of truth.

Let it therefore Wander, and once more let me give it the Free Reins, that hereafter being conveniently curbed, it may suffer it self to be more easily Govern’d.

Let it wander then, and once again let me give it free rein, so that in the future, when it's appropriately restrained, it can be governed more easily.

Let me consider those things which of all Things I formerly conceived most evident, that is to say, Bodies which we touch, which we see, not bodies in General (for those General Conceptions are usually Confused) but some one Body in particular.

Let me think about those things that I once considered the most clear, namely, the objects we touch and see—not objects in general (because those general ideas are often confused) but a specific object in particular.

Let us chuse for example this piece of Bees-wax, it was lately taken from the Comb, it has not yet lost all the tast of[21] the Honey, it retains something of the smell of the Flowers from whence ’twas gather’d, its colour, shape, and bigness are manifest, ’tis hard, ’tis cold, ’tis easily felt, and if you will knock it with your finger, ’twill make a noise: In fine, it hath all things requisite to the most perfect notion of a Body.

Let’s choose, for example, this piece of beeswax. It was recently taken from the comb, and it hasn’t lost all the taste of[21] the honey; it still has some of the smell of the flowers it came from. Its color, shape, and size are clear. It’s hard, cold, and easy to feel, and if you tap it with your finger, it’ll make a noise. In short, it has everything needed for the most complete idea of a body.

But behold whilst I am speaking, ’tis put to the Fire, its tast is purged away, the smell is vanish’d, the colour is changed, the shape is alter’d, its bulk is increased, its become soft, ’tis hot, it can scarce be felt, and now (though you strike it) it makes no noise. Does it yet continue the same Wax? surely it does, this all confess, no one denies it, no one doubts it. What therefore was there in it that was so evidently known? surely none of those things which I perceived by my senses; for what I smelt, tasted, have seen, felt, or heard, are all vanish’d, and yet the Wax remains. Perhaps ’twas this only that I now think on, viz. that the Wax it self was not that tast of Honey, that smell of Flowers, that whiteness, that shape, or that sound, but it was a Body which awhile before appear’d to me so[22] and so modified, but now otherwise. But what is it strictly that I thus imagine? let me consider: And having rejected whatever belongs not to the Wax, let me see what will remain, viz. this only, a thing extended, flexible, and mutable. But what is this flexible, and mutable? is it that I imagine that this Wax from being round may be made square, or from being square can be made triangular? No, this is not it; for I conceive it capable of innumerable such changes, and yet I cannot by my imagination run over these Innumerables; Wherefore this notion of its mutability proceeds not from my imagination. What then is extended? is not its Extension also unknown? For when it melts ’tis greater, when it boils ’tis greater, and yet greater when the heat is increas’d; and I should not rightly judge of the Wax, did I not think it capable of more various Extensions than I can imagine. It remains therefore for me only to confess, that I cannot imagine what this Wax is, but that I perceive with my Mind what it is. I speak of this particular Wax, for of Wax in general the notion is more clear.

But look, while I'm talking, it’s put to the fire; its taste is gone, the smell has vanished, the color has changed, the shape has altered, its size has increased, it has become soft, it’s hot, it can hardly be felt, and now (even if you hit it) it makes no noise. Is it still the same Wax? Of course it is, everybody agrees, no one denies it, no one doubts it. So what was so clearly known about it? Surely none of those things I perceived through my senses; because what I smelled, tasted, saw, felt, or heard have all vanished, and yet the Wax remains. Perhaps this is what I’m thinking about now: that the Wax itself was not that taste of Honey, that smell of Flowers, that whiteness, that shape, or that sound, but it was a Body that a moment ago appeared to me as[22] and so modified, but now different. But what exactly is it that I imagine? Let me think: And having ruled out whatever doesn’t belong to the Wax, let me see what remains, namely this only, a thing extended, flexible, and mutable. But what is this flexible and mutable? Do I imagine that this Wax can change from being round to square, or from being square to triangular? No, that’s not it; because I think it can undergo countless such changes, and yet I cannot use my imagination to list all these Countless; therefore, this idea of its mutability doesn’t come from my imagination. What then is extended? Isn’t its Extension also unknown? Because when it melts, it becomes larger, when it boils, it’s larger, and even larger when the heat is increased; and I wouldn’t be judging the Wax correctly if I didn’t believe it could have more varied Extensions than I can imagine. So it turns out that I can only admit that I can’t imagine what this Wax is, but I perceive with my Mind what it is. I’m talking about this particular Wax, because the idea of Wax in general is clearer.

But what Wax is this that I only conceive[23] by my mind? ’Tis the same which I see, which I touch, which I imagine, and in fine, the same which at first I judged it to be. But this is to be noted, that the perception thereof is not sight, the touch, or the imagination thereof; neither was it ever so, though at first it seem’d so. But the perception thereof is the inspection or beholding of the Mind only, which may be either imperfect and confused, as formerly it was; or clear and distinct, as now it is; the more or the less I consider the Composition of the Wax.

But what is this wax that I can only understand[23] with my mind? It’s the same wax I see, touch, and imagine, and ultimately, the same wax I initially thought it was. However, it’s important to note that the perception of it is not sight, touch, or imagination; it never was, even though it seemed that way at first. The perception of it is actually the inspection or beholding of the mind alone, which can be either imperfect and confused, as it was before; or clear and distinct, as it is now; depending on how I consider the composition of the wax.

In the interim, I cannot but admire how prone my mind is to erre; for though I revolve these things with my self silently, and without speaking, yet am I intangled in meer words, and am almost deceived by the usual way of expression; for we commonly say, that we see the Wax it self if it be present, and not, that we judge it present by its colour or shape; from whence I should immediately thus conclude, therefore the Wax is known by the sight of the eye, and not by the inspection of the mind only. Thus I should have concluded, had not I by chance look’d out of my window, and seen men[24] passing by in the Street; which men I as usually say that I see, as I do now, that I see this Wax; and yet I see nothing but their Hair and Garments, which perhaps may cover only artificial Machines and movements, but I judge them to be men; so that what I thought I only saw with my eyes, I comprehend by my Judicative Faculty, which is my Soul. But it becomes not one, who desires to be wiser than the Vulgar, to draw matter of doubt from those ways of expression, which the Vulgar have invented.

In the meantime, I can’t help but admire how easily my mind can go off track; even though I think through these things quietly and without speaking, I still get caught up in mere words and almost tricked by the usual way of saying things. We often say, "we see the Wax itself if it’s there," rather than "we know it’s there by its color or shape." From that, I would quickly conclude that the Wax is known by the sight of the eye, not just by the inspection of the mind. That’s what I would have thought, if I hadn’t happened to look out my window and see men passing by in the street. I usually say that I “see” them, just like I say I “see” this Wax now; yet all I see are their hair and clothes, which might only be hiding artificial machines and movements. Still, I think of them as men. So, what I thought I saw with my eyes, I actually understand through my Judicative Faculty, which is my Soul. But it’s not fitting for someone who wants to be smarter than the average person to question those ways of expression that the average person has come up with.

Wherefore let us proceed and consider, whether I perceived more perfectly and evidently what the Wax was, when I first look’d on’t, and believed that I knew it by my outward senses, or at least by my common sense (as they call it) that is to say, by my imagination; or whether at present I better understand it, after I have more diligently enquired both what it is, and how it may be known. Surely it would be a foolish thing to make it matter of doubt to know which of these parts are true; What was there in my first perception that was distinct? What was there that seem’d not incident to every[25] other Animal? But now when I distinguish the Wax from its outward adherents, and consider it as if it were naked, with it’s coverings pull’d off, then I cannot but really perceive it with my mind, though yet perhaps my judgment may erre.

So let’s move on and think about whether I understood the Wax more clearly and directly when I first saw it and thought I recognized it through my outer senses, or at least through what they call my common sense, meaning my imagination; or if I understand it better now, after I’ve looked more closely at what it is and how I can know it. It would be silly to doubt which of these views is true. What was there in my first perception that felt distinct? What was there that seemed unlike it would for any other animal? But now, when I separate the Wax from its outer layers and think of it as if it were bare, with its coverings taken off, I can’t help but genuinely perceive it with my mind, although my judgment might still be mistaken.

But what shall I now say as to my mind, or my self? (for as yet I admit nothing as belonging to me but a mind.) Why (shall I say?) should not I, who seem to perceive this Wax so distinctly, know my self not only more truly and more certainly, but more distinctly and evidently? For if I judge that this Wax exists, because I see this Wax; surely it will be much more evident, that I my self exist, because I see this Wax; for it may be that this that I see is not really Wax, also it may be that I have no eyes wherewith to see any thing; but it cannot be, when I see, or (which is the same thing) when I think that I see, that I who think should not exist. The same thing will follow if I judge that this Wax exists, because I touch, or imagine it, &c. And what has been said of Wax, may be apply’d to all other outward things.

But what should I say about my mind or my self? (Since I admit that nothing belongs to me but a mind.) Why shouldn’t I, who seem to perceive this Wax so clearly, know my self not only more truly and more certainly, but also more clearly and evidently? If I judge that this Wax exists because I see it, then it must be much more evident that I myself exist because I see this Wax; because it might be that what I see isn’t really Wax, and it’s also possible that I have no eyes to see anything at all; but it can’t be that when I see, or (which is the same) when I think I see, I who think do not exist. The same logic applies if I judge that this Wax exists because I touch it or imagine it, etc. And what has been said about Wax can be applied to all other external things.

[26]

[26]

Moreover, if the notion of Wax seems more distinct after it is made known to me, not only by my sight or touch, but by more and other causes; How much the more distinctly must I confess my self known unto my self, seeing that all sort of reasoning which furthers me in the perception of Wax, or any other Body, does also encrease the proofs of the nature of my Mind. But there are so many more things in the very Mind it self, by which the notion of it may be made more distinct, that those things which drawn from Body conduce to its knowledge are scarce to be mention’d.

Additionally, if the concept of Wax seems clearer to me, not just through my sight or touch, but for many other reasons, how much more clearly must I acknowledge that I understand myself, since all the reasoning that helps me grasp the notion of Wax or any other object also strengthens my understanding of the nature of my Mind. There are so many more aspects within the Mind itself that can clarify its notion, that those elements derived from the Body that contribute to this knowledge are hardly worth mentioning.

And now behold of my own accord am I come to the place I would be in; for seeing I have now discover’d that Bodies themselves are not properly perceived by our senses or imagination, but only by our understanding, and are not therefore perceived, because they are felt or seen, but because they are understood; it plainly appears to me, that nothing can possibly be perceived by me easier, or more evidently, than my Mind.

And now, look, I’ve come here on my own because I realized that bodies aren’t really perceived by our senses or imagination, but only through our understanding. They aren't perceived just because we feel or see them, but because we understand them. It’s clear to me that nothing is easier or more obvious for me to perceive than my mind.

But because I cannot so soon shake off the Acquaintance of my former Opinion,[27] I am willing to stop here, that this my new knowledge may be better fixt in my memory the longer I meditate thereon.

But since I can’t quickly let go of my previous thoughts,[27] I prefer to pause here, so that this new understanding can be better ingrained in my memory the more I reflect on it.


Meditation III.
Of GOD, and that there is a God.

Now will I shut my eyes, I will stop my ears, and withdraw all my senses, I will blot out the Images of corporeal things clearly from my mind, or (because that can scarce be accomplish’d) I will give no heed to them, as being vain and false, and by discoursing with my self, and prying more rightly into my own Nature, will endeavour to make my self by degrees more known and familiar to my self.

Now I will close my eyes, block my ears, and shut down all my senses. I will clear the images of physical things from my mind, or (since that's hardly possible) I will ignore them, seeing them as pointless and false. By talking to myself and examining my own nature more closely, I will try to gradually understand myself better and become more familiar with who I am.

I am a Thinking Thing, that is to say, doubting, affirming, denying, understanding few things, ignorant of many things, willing, nilling, imagining also, and sensitive. For (as before I have noted) though perhaps whatever I imagine, or am sensible of, as without me, Is not; yet that manner[28] of thinking which I call sense and imagination (as they are only certain Modes of Thinking) I am certain are in Me. So that in these few Words I have mention’d whatever I know, or at least Whatever as yet I perceive my self to know.

I am a Thinking Thing, meaning that I doubt, affirm, deny, and understand a few things, ignorant of many more, willing, unwilling, imagining as well, and sensitive. For (as I have noted before) although everything I imagine or am aware of outside of myself may not exist; still, that way[28] of thinking that I refer to as sensing and imagining (since they are just certain modes of thinking) I am sure are in me. So, in these few words, I have mentioned everything I know, or at least whatever I currently perceive myself to know.

Now will I look about me more carefully to see Whether there Be not some other Thing in Me, of Which I have not yet taken Notice. I am sure That I am a Thinking Thing, and therefore Do not I know what is Required to make certain of any Thing? I Answer, that in this My first knowledge ’tis Nothing but a clear, and distinct perception of What I affirm, Which would not be sufficient to make me certain of the Truth of a Thing, if it were Possible that any thing that I so clearly and distinctly Perceive should be false. Wherefore I may lay this Down as a Principle. Whatever I Clearly and Distinctly perceive is certainly True.

Now I will look around me more carefully to see if there’s anything else within me that I haven't noticed yet. I know I am a Thinking Thing, so shouldn’t I understand what is needed to be certain about anything? I respond that in this first knowledge, it’s simply a clear and distinct perception of what I affirm, which wouldn’t be enough to ensure I’m certain of the Truth of something if it were possible for anything I perceive so clearly and distinctly to be false. Therefore, I can establish this as a Principle: Whatever I Clearly and Distinctly perceive is certainly True.

But I have formerly Admitted of many Things as very Certain and manifest, Which I afterwards found to be doubtful. Therefore What sort of Things were they? Viz. Heaven, Earth, Stars, and all other things which I perceived by my[29] Senses. But What did I Perceive of These Clearly? Viz. That I had the Ideas or Thoughts of these things in my mind, and at Present I cannot deny that I have these Ideas in Me. But there was some other thing Which I affirm’d, and Which (by Reason of the common Way of Belief) I thought that I Clearly Perceived; Which nevertheless, I did not really Perceive; And that was, that there were Certain Things Without Me from whence these Ideas Proceeded, and to which they were exactly like. And this it was, Wherein I was either Deceived, or if by Chance I Judged truly, yet it Proceeded not from the strength of my Perception.

But I used to believe many things were very certain and clear, which I later realized were doubtful. So what were those things? Specifically: Heaven, Earth, Stars, and all other things I perceived with my [29] senses. But what did I perceive about these things clearly? Specifically: That I had the ideas or thoughts of these things in my mind, and right now I can't deny that I have these ideas in me. However, there was something else that I claimed to perceive clearly, which, due to common belief, I thought I truly felt; yet, I did not really perceive it. That was the belief that there were certain things outside of me from which these ideas came, and to which they were exactly similar. This was where I was either deceived, or if by chance I judged truly, it didn't come from the strength of my perception.

But When I was exercised about any single and easie Proposition in Arithmetick or Geometry, as that two and three added make five, Did not I Perceive them Clearly enough to make me affirm them True? Truly concerning these I had no other Reason afterwards to Doubt, but That I thought Perhaps there may be a God who might have so created me, that I should be Deceived even in those things which seem’d most Clear to me. And as often as this Pre-conceived opinion of[30] Gods great Power comes into my Mind, I cannot but Confess that he may easily cause me to Err even in those things which I Think I perceive most Evidently with my Mind; yet as often as I Consider the Things themselves, which I Judge my self to perceive so Clearly, I am so fully Perswaded by them, that I easily Break out into these Expressions, Let Who can Deceive Me, yet he shall never Cause me Not to Be whilst I think that I Am, or that it shall ever be True, that I never was, Whilst at Present ’tis True that I am, or Perhaps, that Two and Three added make More or Less then Five; for in These things I Percieve a Manifest Repugnancy; And truely seeing I have no reason to Think any God a Deceiver, Nor as yet fully know Whether there Be any God, or Not, ’Tis but a slight and (as I may say) Metaphysical Reason of Doubt, which depends only on that opinion of which I am not yet Perswaded.

But when I was focused on any simple and obvious statement in arithmetic or geometry, like that two plus three equals five, didn’t I perceive them clearly enough to say they were true? Honestly, regarding these, I had no other reason to doubt later than that I thought maybe there could be a God who created me in such a way that I would be deceived even about those things that seemed most clear to me. And whenever this pre-existing idea of God’s great power enters my mind, I can’t help but admit that He could easily make me err even in those things I believe I perceive most evidently. Yet, whenever I consider the things themselves that I judge I perceive so clearly, I am so fully convinced by them that I easily break out into these expressions: let anyone try to deceive me, yet He shall never cause me to not be while I think that I am, or that it could ever be true that I never was, while at present it’s true that I am, or maybe that two and three added makes more or less than five; because in these things I see a clear contradiction. And truly, since I have no reason to think any God a deceiver, nor do I fully know whether there is any God or not, it’s just a slight and, as I might say, metaphysical reason for doubt that relies only on that opinion I’m not yet convinced of.

Wherefore That this Hindrance may be taken away, When I have time I ought to Enquire, Whether there Be a God, And if there be One, Whether he can be a Deceiver, For whilst I am Ignorant of this, I[31] cannot possibly be fully Certain of any Other thing.

So, to remove this obstacle, when I have time, I should look into whether there is a God, and if there is, whether He could be a Deceiver. As long as I'm Ignorant about this, I cannot really be fully Certain about anything else.

But now Method seems to Require Me to Rank all My Thoughts under certain Heads, and to search in Which of them Truth or Falshood properly Consists. Some of them are (as it were) the Images of Things, and to these alone the Name of an Idea properly belongs, as When I think upon a Man, A Chimera or Monster, Heaven, an Angel, or God. But there are others of them, that have superadded Forms to them, as when I Will, when I Fear, when I Affirm, when I Deny. I know I have alwayes (when ever I think) some certain Thing as the subject or object of my Thought, but in this last sort of thoughts there is something more which I Think upon then Barely the likeness of the Thing. And of these Thoughts some are called Wills and Affections, and Others of them Judgments.

But now it seems like I need to organize all my thoughts under specific categories and figure out which of them represent Truth or Falsehood. Some of these are like the Images of things, and only these can truly be called Ideas, like when I think about a man, a chimera or monster, heaven, an angel, or God. But there are others that have additional Forms added to them, like when I will, when I fear, when I affirm, or when I deny. I know that whenever I think, I always have something specific as the subject or object of my thought, but in this last category of thoughts, there is something more I’m considering than just the representation of the thing. Among these thoughts, some are called Wills and Affections, while others are classified as Judgments.

Now as touching Ideas, if they be Consider’d alone as they are in themselves, without Respect to any other Things, they cannot Properly be false; for Whether I Imagine a Goat or a Chimera, ’tis as Certain that I Imagine one as t’other. Also in[32] the Will and Affections I need not Fear any Falshood, For tho I should Wish for evil Things, or Things that are Not, it is not therefore Not true that I Wish for them.

Now regarding Ideas, if we consider them by themselves, without Respect to anything else, they can't really be false; because whether I Imagine a goat or a chimera, it’s equally Certain that I Imagine one just like the other. Also in [32] the Will and Affections, I don't have to fear any Falshood. Even if I Wish for evil Things or things that don't exist, it doesn’t mean it's not true that I wish for them.

Wherefore there onely Remains my Judgments of Things, in which I must take Care that I be not deceived. Now the Chief and most usual Error that I discover in them is, That I Judge Those Ideas that are within me to be Conformable and like to certain things that are without Me; for truely if I Consider those Ideas as certain Modes of my Thought, without Respect to any other Thing, they will scarce afford me an Occasion of Erring.

Therefore, all that’s left is my Judgments about things, and I need to be careful not to be deceived. The main and most common Error I find in them is that I Judge the Ideas that are within me to be Conformable and similar to certain things that are outside me; because truly, if I consider those Ideas as just certain Modes of my Thought, without considering anything else, they will barely give me a reason to Err.

Of these Ideas some are Innate, some Adventitious, and some Others seem to Me as Created by my self; For that I understand what A Thing Is, What is Truth, What a Thought, seems to Proceed meerly from my own Nature. But that I now hear a Noise, see the Sun, or feel heat, I have alwayes Judged to Proceed from Things External. But Lastly, Mermaids, Griffins, and such like Monsters, are made meerly by My self. And yet I may well think all of them either Adventitious,[33] or all of them Innate, or all of them made by my self, for I have not as yet discover’d their true Original.

Of these Ideas, some are Innate, some are Adventitious, and some seem to me to be created by myself. I understand what A Thing is, what Truth is, and what a Thought is, which seems to come purely from my own Nature. However, I now hear a noise, see the sun, or feel heat, and I have always Judged these to come from External things. Lastly, mermaids, griffins, and such monsters are made merely by myself. Yet, I can believe that all of them are either Adventitious, [33] or all Innate, or all made by myself, since I have not yet discovered their true Original.

But I ought cheifly to search after those of them which I count Adventitious, and which I consider as coming from outward objects, that I may know what reason I have to think them like the things themselves, which they represent. Viz. Nature so teaches Me; and also I know that they depend not on my Will, and therefore not on me; for they are often present with me against my inclinations, or (as they say) in spite of my teeth, as now whether I will or no I feel heat, and therefore I think that the sense or Idea of heat is propagated to me by a thing really distinct from my self, and that is by the heat of the Fire at which I sit; And nothing is more obvious then for me to judge that That thing should transmit its own Likeness into me, rather then that any other thing should be transmitted by it. Which sort of arguments whether firme enough or not I shall now Trie.

But I should mainly look for those ideas that I consider accidental and which I believe come from outside objects, so I can understand what reason I have to think they are similar to the things they represent. Namely, nature teaches me this; and I also know they do not depend on my will, and therefore not on me; because they often appear to me against my wishes, or as they say, in spite of my best efforts. For example, whether I want to or not, I feel heat, and so I think that the sensation or idea of heat is being transmitted to me by something truly distinct from myself, which is the heat of the fire I’m sitting by. And it’s quite clear to me that this thing should transfer its own likeness to me, rather than that another thing should be transmitted by it. I will now test whether these kinds of arguments are solid enough or not.

When I here say, that nature so teaches me, I understand only, that I am as it were willingly forced to beleive it, and[34] not that ’tis discover’d to me to be true by any natural light; for these two differ very much. For whatever is discover’d to me by the Light of nature (as that it necessarily Follows that I am, because I think) cannot possibly be doubted; Because I am endowed with no other Faculty, in which I may put so great confidence, as I can in the Light of nature; or which can possibly tell me, that those things are false, which natural light teaches me to be true; and as to my natural Inclinations, I have heretofore often judged my self led by them to the election of the worst part, when I was in the choosing one of two Goods; and therefore I see no reason why I should ever trust them in any other thing.

When I say that nature teaches me, I mean that I am somewhat willingly forced to believe it, and[34] not that it’s revealed to me as true through any natural light; because these two are quite different. Whatever is revealed to me by the Light of nature (like the fact that I exist because I think) cannot possibly be doubted; because I’m not equipped with any other Faculty that I can trust as much as I can trust the Light of nature; nor can anything possibly tell me that those things are false which natural light teaches me to be true. As for my natural inclinations, I’ve often thought that they have led me to choose the worst option when I had to pick one of two goods; so I see no reason to ever trust them in anything else.

And then, tho these Ideas depend not on my will, it does not therefore follow that they necessarily proceed from things external. For as, Altho those Inclinations (which I but now mention’d) are in me, yet they seem distinct and different from my will; so perhaps there may be in me some other faculty (to me unknown) which may prove the Efficient cause of these Ideas, as hitherto I have observed[35] them to be formed in me whilst I dream, without the help of any External Object.

And even though these Ideas don't depend on my will, it doesn't mean that they necessarily come from external things. Just as, even though those Inclinations (which I just mentioned) are within me, they seem distinct and different from my will; maybe there’s some other ability in me (that I’m not aware of) that could be the Efficient cause of these Ideas, since I have noticed[35] they form in me while I dream, without needing any External Object.

And last of all, tho they should proceed from things which are different from me, it does not therefore follow that they must be like those things. For often times I have found the thing and the Idea differing much. As for example, I find in my self two divers Ideas of the Sun, one as received by my senses (and which cheifly I reckon among those I call adventitious) by which it appears to me very smal, * another as taken from the arguments of Astronomers (that is to say, consequentially collected, or some other ways made by me from certain natural notions) by which ’tis rendred something bigger then the Globe of the Earth. Certainly both of these cannot be like that sun which is without me, and my reason perswades me, that that Idea is most unlike the Sun, which seems to proceed Immediately from it self.

And finally, even if they come from things that are different from me, it doesn't mean they have to be like those things. Many times, I've noticed that the thing and the idea can differ significantly. For instance, I have two different ideas of the Sun within myself—one is based on what I receive through my senses (which I primarily classify as external), where it appears very small. The other is derived from the arguments of astronomers (that is, collected from logical reasoning or developed by me through certain natural concepts), which makes it seem larger than the globe of the Earth. Clearly, neither of these can truly be like the Sun that exists outside of me, and my reasoning tells me that the idea most unlike the Sun is the one that seems to come directly from it.

All which things sufficiently prove, that I have hitherto (not from a true judgement, but from a blind impulse) beleived that there are certain things different from my[36] self, and which have sent their Ideas or Images into me by the Organs of my senses, or some other way.

All of these things clearly show that I have so far (not based on a true judgment, but from a blind impulse) believed that there are certain things different from myself, which have sent their Ideas or Images into me through the organs of my senses, or in some other way.[36]

But I have yet an other Way of inquiring, whether any of those Things (whose Ideas I have within Me) are Really Existent without Me; And that is Thus: As those Ideas are only Modes of Thinking, I acknowledge no Inequality between them, and they all proceed from me in the same Manner. But as one Represents one thing, an other, an other Thing, ’tis Evident there is a Great difference between them. * For without doubt, Those of them which Represent Substances are something More, or (as I may say) have More of Objective Reallity in them, then those that Represent only Modes or Accidents; and again, That by Which I understand a Mighty God, Eternal, Infinite, Omniscient, Omnipotent Creatour of all things besides himself, has certainly in it more Objective Reallity, then Those Ideas by which Finite Substances are Exhibited.

But I have another way of asking whether any of those things (the ideas I have inside me) really exist outside of me; and it goes like this: Since those ideas are just ways of thinking, I see no inequality among them, and they all come from me in the same way. However, since one represents one thing, another represents another thing, it’s clear there’s a significant difference between them. For sure, those that represent substances have something more, or (as I might say) more objective reality in them than those that only represent modes or accidents; and again, the idea through which I understand a mighty God—eternal, infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent creator of everything besides himself—definitely has more objective reality in it than the ideas through which finite substances are shown.

But Now, it is evident by the Light of Nature that there must be as much at least in the Total efficient Cause, as there is in the Effect of that Cause; For from Whence[37] can the effect have its Reallity, but from the Cause? and how can the Cause give it that Reallity, unless it self have it?

But now, it’s clear from the Light of Nature that there has to be at least as much in the Total efficient Cause as there is in the Effect of that Cause; because where else[37] could the effect get its Reality if not from the Cause? And how can the Cause give it that Reality unless it itself possesses it?

And from hence it follows, that neither a Thing can be made out of Nothing, Neither a Thing which is more Perfect (that is, Which has in it self more Reallity) proceed from That Which is Less Perfect.

And from this, it follows that neither a Thing can be made from Nothing, nor can a Thing that is more Perfect (which means it has within itself more Reality) come from that which is Less Perfect.

And this is Clearly True, not only in those Effects whose Actual or Formal Reallity is Consider’d, But in Those Ideas also, Whose Objective Reallity is only Respected; That is to say, for Example of Illustration, it is not only impossible that a stone, Which was not, should now begin to Be, unless it were produced by something, in Which, Whatever goes to the Making a Stone, is either Formally or Virtually; neither can heat be Produced in any Thing, which before was not hot, but by a Thing which is at least of as equal a degree of Perfection as heat is; But also ’tis Impossible that I should have an Idea of Heat, or of a Stone, unless it were put into me by some Cause, in which there is at Least as much Reallity, as I Conceive there is in heat or a Stone. For tho that Cause transfers[38] none of its own Actual or Formal Reality into my Idea, I must not from thence conclude that ’tis less real; but I may think that the nature of the Idea it self is such, that of it self it requires no other formal reality, but what it has from my thought, of which ’tis a mode. But that this Idea has this or that objective reallity, rather then any other, proceeds clearly from some cause, in which there ought to be at least as much formal reallity, as there is of objective reallity in the Idea it self. For if we suppose any thing in the Idea, which was not in its cause, it must of necessity have this from nothing; but (tho it be a most Imperfect manner of existing, by which the thing is objectively in the Intellect by an Idea, yet) it is not altogether nothing, and therefore cannot proceed from nothing.

And this is Clearly True, not only in those Effects whose Actual or Formal Reality is considered, but also in those Ideas whose Objective Reality is only regarded. For example, it is not only impossible for a stone that was not to suddenly be unless it is produced by something that contains, either Formally or Virtually, whatever is needed to make a stone. Likewise, heat cannot come into existence in something that wasn’t hot before, without being produced by something that has at least the same degree of Perfection as heat; it is also impossible for me to have an Idea of heat or of a stone, unless that Idea is given to me by some Cause that has at least as much Reality as I conceive exists in heat or a stone. For although that Cause doesn’t transfer any of its own Actual or Formal Reality into my Idea, I shouldn’t conclude that it is less real; instead, I can think that the nature of the Idea itself is such that it doesn’t need any other formal reality than what it derives from my thought, which is a mode of it. However, the fact that this Idea has this or that objective reality, rather than any other, clearly comes from some cause, which must have at least as much formal reality as there is objective reality in the Idea itself. For if we suppose anything in the Idea that wasn’t in its cause, it must come from nothing; but (even though it is a pretty Imperfect manner of existing for the thing to be objectively in the Intellect through an Idea, still) it is not altogether nothing, and therefore cannot come from nothing.

Neither ought I to doubt, seeing the reallity which I perceive in my Ideas is only an objective reallity, that therefore it must of necessity follow, that the same reallity should be in the causes of these Ideas formally. But I may conclude, that ’tis sufficient that this reallity be in the very causes only objectively. For as that objective[39] manner of being appertains to the very nature of an Idea, so that formal manner of being appertains to the very nature of a cause of Ideas, at least to the first and chiefest causes of them; For tho perhaps one Idea may receive its birth from an other, yet we cannot proceed in Infinitum, but at last we must arrive at some first Idea, whose cause is (as it were) an Original copy, in which all the objective reallity of the Idea is formally contain’d. So that I plainly discover by the light of nature, that the Ideas, which are in me, are (as it were) Pictures, which may easily come short of the perfection of those things from whence they are taken, but cannot contain any thing greater or more perfect then them: And the longer and more diligently I pry into these things, so much the more clearly and distinctly do I discover them to be true.

I shouldn’t doubt that the reality I see in my ideas is just an objective reality. Therefore, it must follow that the same reality exists in the causes of these ideas formally. However, I can conclude that it’s enough for this reality to exist in the causes only objectively. Just as that objective way of being is part of the very nature of an idea, so that formal way of being is part of the very nature of a cause of ideas, at least for the first and most important causes of them. Although one idea might come from another, we can't go on forever; eventually, we must arrive at some first idea, whose cause is like an original copy, where all the objective reality of the idea is formally contained. Therefore, I can clearly see by the light of nature that the ideas within me are like pictures; they may easily fall short of the perfection of the things they are taken from, but they cannot contain anything greater or more perfect than those things. The more I examine these matters, the more clearly and distinctly I find them to be true.

But what shall I conclude from hence? Thus, that if the objective reallity of any of my Ideas be such, that it cannot be in me either formally or eminently, and that therefore I cannot be the cause of that Idea, from hence it necessarily Follows, that I alone do not only exist, but that some other[40] thing, which is cause of that Idea, does exist also.

But what should I conclude from this? That if the objective reality of any of my Ideas is such that it cannot exist in me either formally or eminently, and therefore I cannot be the cause of that Idea, it necessarily follows that I alone do not just exist, but that something else, which is the cause of that Idea, exists as well.[40]

But if I can find no such Idea in me, I have no argument to perswade me of the existence of any thing besides my self for I have diligently enquired, and hitherto I could discover no other perswasive.

But if I can’t find any such Idea within me, I have no reason to believe in the existence of anything beyond myself, because I’ve looked carefully, and so far I haven’t found any other perswasive.

Some of these Ideas there are (besides that which represents my self to my self, of which in this place I cannot doubt) which represent to me, one of them a God, others of them Corporeal and Inanimate things, some of them Angels, others Animals, and lastly some of them which exhibite to me men like my self.

Some of these Ideas exist (besides that which shows my self to my self, which I have no doubt about here) that represent to me, one of them a God, others Corporeal and Inanimate things, some of them Angels, others Animals, and finally some that show me men like my self.

As touching those that represent Men or Angels or Animals, I easily understand that they may be made up of those Ideas which I have of my self, of Corporeal things, and of God, tho there were neither man (but my self) nor Angel, nor Animal in being.

As for those that represent Men, Angels, or Animals, I can easily see that they might be made up of the Ideas I have of myself, of physical things, and of God, even if there were no man (except me), Angel, or Animal existing.

And as to the Ideas of Corporeal things, I find nothing in them of that perfection, but it may proceed from my self; for if I look into them more narrowly, and examine them more particularly, as yesterday (in the second Medit.) I did the Idea of[41] Wax, I find there are but few things which I perceive clearly and distinctly in them, viz. Magnitude or extension in Longitude, Latitude, and Profundity, the Figure or shape which arises from the termination of that Extension, the Position or place which divers Figured Bodies have in respect of each other, their motion or change of place; to which may be added, their substance, continuance, and number; as to the other, such as are, Light, Colours, Sounds, Smels, Tasts, Heat, and Cold, with the other tactile qualities, I have but very obscure and confused thoughts of them, so that I know not, whether they are true or false, that is to say, whether the Ideas I have of them are the Ideas of things which really are, or are not. For altho falshood formally and properly so called, consists only in the judgement (as before I have observed) yet there is an other sort of material falshood in Ideas, when they represent a thing as really existent, tho it does not exist; so, for example, the Ideas I have of heat and cold are so obscure and confused, that I cannot collect from them, whether cold be a privation of heat, or heat a privation of cold, or whether[42] either of them be a real quality, or whether neither of them be real. And since every Idea must be like the thing it represents, if it be true that cold is nothing but the privation of heat, that Idea which represents it to me as a thing real and positive may deservedly be called false. The same may be apply’d to other Ideas.

And regarding the Ideas of Corporeal things, I don't see any perfection in them, but that could be due to my own perspective; because if I take a closer look and examine them more specifically, like I did yesterday (in the second Medit.) with the Idea of[41] Wax, I realize there are only a few aspects I perceive clearly and distinctly, namely Magnitude or extension in Longitude, Latitude, and Depth, the Figure or shape formed by the termination of that Extension, the Position or location that different Figured Bodies have in relation to each other, their motion or change of location; adding to that their substance, continuance, and number. As for other things like Light, Colors, Sounds, Smells, Tastes, Heat, and Cold, along with other tactile qualities, my thoughts on them are quite obscure and confused, so I'm not sure whether they are true or false, meaning whether the Ideas I have about them truly represent things that actually exist or do not. Even though falsehood in the formal sense only involves judgement (as I mentioned earlier), there's also a different type of material falsehood in Ideas when they depict a thing as actually existing, even when it doesn't exist; for example, the Ideas I have of heat and cold are so obscure and confused that I can’t determine whether cold is just a lack of heat, or if heat is a lack of cold, or if[42] either is a real quality, or if neither is real. And since every Idea must resemble the thing it represents, if it’s true that cold is merely the absence of heat, then the Idea that portrays it to me as a real and positive entity can rightfully be called false. The same applies to other Ideas.

And now I see no necessity why I should assigne any other Author of these Ideas but my self; for if they are false, that is, represent things that are not, I know by the light of nature that they proceed from nothing; that is to say, I harbour them upon no other account, but because my nature is deficient in something, and imperfect. But if they are true, yet seeing I discover so little reality in them, that that very reality scarce seems to be realy, I see no reason why I my self should not be the Author of them.

And now I see no reason why I should credit anyone else as the Author of these Ideas except myself; because if they are false, meaning they represent things that are not, I understand from the light of nature that they come from nothing; in other words, I hold onto them only because my nature is lacking in something and imperfect. But if they are true, given that I find so little reality in them that even that reality hardly seems real, I see no reason why I shouldn't be the Author of them.

But also some of those very Ideas of Corporeal things which are clear and distinct, I may seem to have borrow’d from the Idea I have of my self, viz. Substance, duration, number, and the like; For when I conceive a stone to be a substance[43] (that is, a thing apt of it self to exist) and also that I my self am a substance, tho I conceive my self a thinking substance and not extended, and the stone an extended substance and not thinking, by which there is a great diversity between both the conceptions, yet they agree in this, that they are both substances. So when I conceive my self as now in being, and also remember, that heretofore I have been; and since I have divers thoughts, which I can number or count; from hence it is that I come by the notions of duration and number; which afterwards I apply to other things.

But also some of those very Ideas of Physical things that are clear and distinct, I may seem to have borrowed from the Idea I have of myself, specifically Substance, duration, number, and the like; For when I think of a stone as a substance[43] (meaning a thing capable of existing on its own) and also that I myself am a substance, even though I see myself as a thinking substance and not extended, and the stone as an extended substance and not thinking, there is a significant diversity between both conceptions, yet they agree in that they are both substances. So when I think of myself as currently in existence, and also remember that before I have been; and since I have various thoughts, which I can count; this is how I come to understand the concepts of duration and number, which I later apply to other things.

As to those other things, of which the Idea of a body is made up, as extension, figure, place and motion, they are not formally in me, seeing I am only a thinking thing; yet seeing they are only certain modes of substance, and I my self also am a substance, they may seem to be in me eminently.

Regarding those other things that make up the Idea of a body, like extension, figure, place, and motion, they are not formally within me, since I am just a thinking thing; however, because they are merely specific modes of substance, and I am also a substance, they may seem to exist in me eminently.

* Wherefore there only Remains the Idea of a God, wherein I must consider whether there be not something included, which cannot possibly have its original from me. By the word God, I mean a[44] certain Infinite Substance, Independent, Omniscient, Almighty, by whom both I my self, and every thing else that is (if any thing do Actualy exist) was created. All which Attributes are of such an high nature, that the more attentively I consider them, the less I conceive my self possible to be the Author of these notions.

* Therefore, only the Idea of a God remains, and I must think about whether there’s something in it that couldn’t possibly come from me. When I say God, I mean a[44] certain Infinite Substance, Independent, Omniscient, Almighty, by whom both I myself and everything else that exists (if anything actually exists) was created. All these Attributes are so lofty that the more I think about them, the less I believe I could be the Author of these ideas.

From what therefore has been said I must conclude that there is a God; for tho the Idea of substance may arise in me, because that I my self am a substance, yet I could not have the Idea of an Infinite substance (seeing I my self am finite) unless it proceeded from a substance which is really Infinite. Neither ought I to think that I have no true Idea of Infinity, or that I perceive it only by the negation of what is finite, as I conceive rest and darkness by the negation or absence of motion or light. But on the contrary I plainly understand, that there is more reality in an Infinite substance, then in a Finite; and that therefore the perception of an Infinite (as God) is antecedent to the notion I have of a finite (as my self). For how should I know that I doubt or desire, that is to say, that I want something, and that I am not[45] altogether perfect, unless I had the Idea of a being more perfect then my self, by comparing my self to which I may discover my own Imperfections.

From what has been said, I must conclude that there is a God; because although the idea of substance can come to me, since I myself am a substance, I couldn't have the idea of an infinite substance (since I am finite) unless it comes from a substance that is truly infinite. I also shouldn't think that I don't have a true idea of infinity or that I recognize it only by the negation of what is finite, like how I understand rest and darkness by the negation or absence of motion or light. On the contrary, I clearly understand that there is more reality in an infinite substance than in a finite one; therefore, the perception of an infinite (like God) comes before the notion I have of a finite (like myself). For how would I know that I doubt or desire, meaning that I want something and that I am not altogether perfect, unless I had the idea of a being more perfect than myself? By comparing myself to that, I can uncover my own imperfections.

Neither can it be said that this Idea of God is false Materialiter, and that therefore it proceeds from nothing, as before I observed of the Ideas of heat and cold, &c. For on the contrary, seeing this notion is most clear and distinct, and contains in it self more objective reality then any other Idea, none can be more true in it self, nor in which less suspition of falshood can be found. This Idea (I say) of a being infinitely perfect is most true, for tho it may be supposed that such a being does not exist, yet it cannot be supposed that the Idea of such a being exhibites to me nothing real, as before I have said of the Idea of cold. This Idea also is most clear and distinct, for whatever I perceive clearly and distinctly to be real, and true, and perfect, is wholy contain’d in this Idea of God.

Neither can it be said that this Idea of God is false Materialiter, and that therefore it comes from nothing, as I previously mentioned about the Ideas of heat and cold, &c. On the contrary, since this notion is very clear and distinct, and holds more objective reality than any other Idea, none can be more true in itself, nor can there be less suspicion of falsehood found in it. This Idea (I assert) of a being infinitely perfect is most true; for even if it is believed that such a being does not exist, it cannot be believed that the Idea of such a being presents to me nothing real, as I previously stated about the Idea of cold. This Idea is also very clear and distinct, because everything I perceive clearly and distinctly to be real, and true, and perfect, is entirely contained in this Idea of God.

Neither can it be objected, that I cannot comprehend an Infinite, or that there are innumerable other things in God, which I can neither conceive, nor in the least think upon; for it is of the very nature[46] of an Infinite not to be apprehendable by me who am finite. And ’tis sufficient to me to prove this my Idea of God to be the most true, the most clear, and the most distinct Idea of all those Ideas I have, upon this account, that I understand that God is not to be understood, and that I judge that whatever I clearly perceive and know Implys any perfection, as also perhaps other innumerable perfections, which I am ignorant of, are in God either formally or eminently.

It's also not a valid argument to say that I can't understand an Infinite or that there are countless other qualities in God that I can't conceive or even think about; because it's just in the very nature[46] of the Infinite not to be grasped by me since I am finite. And it's enough for me to demonstrate that my Idea of God is the most true, the most clear, and the most distinct Idea of all the Ideas I have, for this reason: I understand that God is beyond comprehension, and I believe that whatever I clearly perceive and know Implies any perfection, and possibly countless other perfections that I don't know about, exist in God either formally or eminently.

Doubt. But perhaps I am something more then I take my self to be, and perhaps all these perfections which I attribute to God, are potentially in me, tho at present they do not shew themselves, and break into action. For I am now fully experienced that my Knowledge may be encreased, and I see nothing that hinders why it may not encrease by degrees in Infinitum, nor why by my knowledge so encreased I may not attain to the other perfections of God; nor lastly, why the power or aptitude of having these perfections may not be sufficient to produce the Idea of them in me.

Doubt. But maybe I am something more than I think I am, and maybe all these perfections that I attribute to God are potentially in me, even if they don't currently show themselves or come to life. Because I have come to realize that my Knowledge can be increased, and I see nothing preventing it from increasing continuously, nor why, through my knowledge so increased, I cannot reach the other perfections of God; nor finally, why the ability to have these perfections may not be enough to create the Idea of them in me.

Solution. But none of these will do;[47] for first, tho it be true that my Knowledge is capable of being increased, and that many things are in me potentially, which actually are not, yet none of these go to the making an Idea of God, in which I conceive nothing potentially, for tis a certain argument of imperfection that a thing may be encreased Gradually. Moreover, tho my knowledge may be more and more encreased, yet I know that it can never be actually Infinite, for it can never arrive to that height of perfection, which admits not of an higher degree. But I conceive God to be actually so Infinite, that nothing can be added to his perfections. And lastly, I perceive that the objective being of an Idea cannot be produced only by the potential being of a thing (which in proper speech is nothing) but requires an actual or formal being to its production.

Solution. But none of these will work; [47] for first, though it's true that my knowledge can be increased and that many things exist in me potentially, which are not actually present, none of these contribute to forming an idea of God, where I conceive nothing potentially, because the fact that something can be increased gradually indicates imperfection. Moreover, even though my knowledge may be more and more increased, I understand that it can never be actually infinite, as it can never reach that height of perfection that allows for no higher degree. But I perceive God to be actually so infinite that nothing can be added to his perfections. Lastly, I recognize that the objective being of an idea cannot be produced solely by the potential being of a thing (which in strict terms is nothing); it requires an actual or formal being for its production.

Of all which forementioned things there is nothing that is not evident by the light of reason to any one that will diligently consider them. Yet because that (when I am careless, and the Images of sensible things blind my understanding) I do not so easily call to mind the reasons, why the Idea of a being more perfect then[48] my self should of necessity proceed from a being which is really more perfect; It will be requisite to enquire further, whether I, who have this Idea, can possibly be, unless such a being did exist. To which end let me aske, from whence should I be? From my self? or from my Parents? or from any other thing less perfect then God? for nothing can be thought or supposed more perfect, or equally perfect with God.

Of all the things mentioned, there’s nothing that isn’t clear to anyone who carefully thinks about them. However, sometimes when I’m not paying attention, and the images of sensory things cloud my understanding, I find it difficult to remember the reasons why the idea of a being that is more perfect than myself must come from a being that is actually more perfect. It’s necessary to explore whether I, who have this idea, can possibly exist unless such a being does exist. So let me ask: where would I come from? From myself? Or from my parents? Or from anything else that is less perfect than God? Because nothing can be imagined or considered more perfect or equally perfect with God.

But first, If I were from my self, I should neither doubt, nor desire, nor want any thing, for I should have given my self all those perfections, of which I have any Idea, and consequently I my self should be God; and I cannot think that those things I want, are to be acquired with greater difficulty then those things I have; but on the contrary, ’tis manifest, that it were much more difficult that I (that is, a substance that thinks) should arise out of nothing, then that I should acquire the knowledge of many things whereof I am Ignorant, which is only the accident of that substance. And certainly if I had that greater thing (viz being) from my self, I should not have denyed my self (not only, those things which may be easier acquired,[49] but also) All those things, which I perceived are contain’d in the Idea of a God; and the reason is, for that no other things seem to me to be more difficultly done, and certainly if they were Really more difficult, they would seem more difficult to me (if whatever I have, I have from my self) for in those things I should find my Power put to a stop.

But first, if I were self-sufficient, I wouldn’t doubt, desire, or want anything, because I would have given myself all the perfections I can imagine, and therefore I would be God. I can’t believe that the things I want are harder to obtain than the things I have; on the contrary, it's clear that it would be much more difficult for me (that is, a thinking substance) to come from nothing than for me to gain the knowledge of many things I am ignorant of, which is just an accident of that substance. And certainly, if I had that greater thing (namely being) from myself, I wouldn’t have denied myself (not only those things that might be easier to obtain,[49] but also) all those things that I perceive are included in the Idea of a God; and the reason is that no other things seem to me to be more difficult to accomplish, and if they were really more difficult, they would seem more difficult to me (if everything I have, I have from myself) because in those instances, I would find my Power limited.

Neither can I Evade the force of these Arguments by supposing my self to have alwaies Been, what now I am, and that therefore I need not seek for an Author of my Being. For the Duration or Continuance of my life may be divided into Innumerable Parts, each of which does not at all depend on the Other Parts; Therefore it will not follow, that because a while ago, I was, I must of necessity now Be. I say, this will not follow, Unless, I suppose some Cause to Create me (as it were) anew for this Moment (that is, Conserve me). For ’tis evident to one that Considers the Nature of Duration, that the same Power and Action is requisite to the Conservation of a Thing each Moment of its Being, as there is to the Creation of that Thing anew, if it did not exist. So that ’tis one[50] of those Principles which are Evident by the Light of Nature: that the Act of Conservation differs only Ratione (as the Philosophers term it) from the Act of Creation.

I can't avoid the force of these arguments by assuming that I've always been what I am now, and therefore I don't need to search for an author of my existence. The duration or continuity of my life can be divided into countless parts, each of which does not depend on the other parts at all. Therefore, it does not follow that just because I existed a while ago, I must necessarily exist now. I mean, that won't follow unless I assume that there is some cause to recreate me anew for this moment (that is, to conserve me). It's clear to anyone who considers the nature of duration that the same power and action are necessary for the conservation of a thing at every moment of its existence as they are for the creation of that thing anew, if it did not exist. So, it's one of those principles that are evident by the light of nature: that the act of conservation differs only in rationale (as philosophers put it) from the act of creation.

Wherefore I ought to ask my self this Question, whether I, who now Am; have any Power to Cause my self to Be hereafter? (for had I any such power, I should certainly know of it, seeing I am nothing but a Thinking Thing, or at least at present I onely treat of that part of me, which is a Thing that Thinks) to which, I answer, that I can discover no such Power in Me; And consequently, I evidently know that I depend on some Other being distinct from my self.

So I should ask myself this question: do I, who am here now, have the power to ensure that I exist in the future? (If I had such power, I would definitely know it, since I am nothing but a thinking being, or at least right now I’m only discussing that part of me which thinks.) In response, I find no such power within myself; therefore, I clearly understand that I depend on some other being distinct from myself.

But what if I say that perhaps this Being is not God, but that I am produced either by my Parents, or some other Causes less perfect then God? In answer to which let me consider (as I have said before) that ’tis manifest that whatever is in the effect, so much at least ought to be in the cause; and therefore seeing I am a thing that thinks, and have in me an Idea of God, it will confessedly follow, that whatever sort of cause I assign of my own Being, it[51] also must be a Thinking Thing, and must have an Idea of all those Perfections, which I attribute to God; Of which Cause it may be again Asked, whether it be from it self, or from any other Cause? If from it self, ’tis evident (from what has been said) that it must be God; For seeing it has the Power of Existing of it self, without doubt it has also the power of actually Possessing all those Perfections whereof it has an Idea in it self, that is, all those Perfections which I conceive in God. But if it Be from an other Cause, it may again be asked of that Cause whether it be of it self, or from an other; Till at length We arrive at the Last Cause of All, Which will Be God. For ’tis evident, that this Enquiry will not admit of Progressus in Infinitum, especially when at Present I treat not only of that Cause which at first made Me; But chiefly of that which conserves me in this Instant time.

But what if I say that maybe this Being is not God, but rather that I am created either by my Parents or by some other less perfect Causes than God? In response to this, let me point out (as I mentioned before) that it’s clear that whatever exists in the effect must at least be present in the cause; and therefore, since I am a thinking being and have in me an Idea of God, it logically follows that whatever kind of cause I attribute to my own Being, it[51] must also be a Thinking Thing and must possess an Idea of all those Perfections that I associate with God. Regarding this Cause, we can further ask whether it exists in itself or comes from another Cause? If it exists in itself, it’s clear (from what’s been stated) that it must be God; because if it has the Power to Exist on its own, it undoubtedly also has the power to actually Possess all those Perfections of which it has an Idea within itself, meaning all those Perfections that I perceive in God. But if it comes from an other Cause, we can again question whether this Cause is in itself or from yet another; until eventually, we reach the Last Cause of All, which will be God. For it’s evident that this Enquiry cannot continue Infinitely, especially since I’m currently focused not just on the Cause that initially produced me, but mainly on that which conserves me at this Moment.

Neither can it be supposed that many partial Causes have concurred to the making Me, and that I received the Idea of one of Gods perfections from One of them, and from an other of them the Idea of an other; and that therefore all[52] these Perfections are to be found scattered in the World, but not all of them Joyn’d in any one which may Be God. For on the contrary, Unity, Simplicity, or the inseparability of All Gods Attributes is one of the chief Perfections which I conceive in Him; and certainly the Idea of the Unity of the Divine Perfections could not be created in me by any other cause, then by That, from whence I have received the Ideas of his other perfections; For ’tis Impossible to make me conceive these perfections, conjunct and inseparable, unless he should also make me know what perfections these are.

It's also not reasonable to think that many partial Causes contributed to creating me, and that I got the Idea of one of God's perfections from One of them, and the Idea of another from another; and that therefore all[52] these Perfections are scattered throughout the World, but not all combined in any single entity that could be God. On the contrary, Unity, Simplicity, or the inseparability of All God's Attributes is one of the chief Perfections I envision in Him; and surely the Idea of the Unity of the Divine Perfections couldn't have been created in me by any other cause than That from which I have received the Ideas of His other perfections; for it’s impossible for me to conceive these perfections as conjunct and inseparable unless I also know what perfections they are.

Lastly as touching my having my Being from my Parents. Tho whatever Thoughts I have heretofore harbour’d of Them were True, yet certainly they contribute nothing to my conservation, neither proceed I from them as I am a Thing that Thinks, for they have onely predisposed that material Thing, wherein I, that is, my mind (which only at present I take for my self) Inhabits. Wherefore I cannot now Question that I am sprung from them. But I must of necessity conclude that because I am, and because I have an Idea of a[53] Being most perfect, that is, of God, it evidently follows that there is a God.

Lastly, regarding my existence coming from my parents. Although any thoughts I’ve had about them up to now were true, they certainly do not contribute to my existence. I do not come from them as I am, as a thinking being, because they have only set up that material body, in which I, or rather my mind (which I currently identify as myself) resides. Therefore, I cannot now question that I have come from them. However, I must conclude that because I exist, and because I have an idea of a most perfect being, which is God, it clearly follows that there is a God.

* Now it only remains for me to examine, how I have received this Idea of God. For I have neither received it by means of my Senses, neither comes it to me without my Forethought, as the Ideas of sensible things use to do, when such things Work on the Organs of my Sense, or at least seem so to work; Neither is this Idea framed by my self, for I can neither detract from, nor add any thing thereto. Wherefore I have only to conclude that it is Innate, even as the Idea of me my self is Natural to my self.

* Now I just need to look at how I have come to have this Idea of God. I haven't gotten it through my Senses, nor does it arrive without my Forethought, like the Ideas of sensible things usually do when those things Work on my Sense organs, or at least seem to work that way. This Idea isn't created by my self, since I can't detract from or add anything to it. So, I can only conclude that it is Innate, just like the Idea of myself is Natural to me.

And truly ’tis not to be Admired that God in Creating me should Imprint this Idea in me, that it may there remain as a stamp impressed by the Workman God on me his Work, neither is it requisite that this stamp should be a Thing different from the Work it self, but ’tis very Credible (from hence only that God Created me) that I am made as it were according to his likeness and Image, and that the same likeness, in which the Idea of God is contain’d, is perceived by Me with the same faculty, with which I perceive my Self;[54] That is to say, whilst I reflect upon my self, I do not only perceive that I am an Imperfect thing, having my dependance upon some other thing, and that I am a Thing that Desires more and better things Indefinitely; But also at the same time I understand, that He on whom I depend contains in him all those wish’d for things (not only Indefinitely and Potentially, but) Really, Indefinitely; and that therefore he is God. The whole stress of which * Argument lies thus, because I know it Impossible for Me to Be of the same Nature I am, Viz. Having the Idea of a God in me, unless really there were a God, a God (I say) that very same God, whose Idea I have in my Mind (that is, Having all those perfections, which I cannot comprehend, but can as it were think upon them) and who is not subject to any Defects.

And truly, it’s not surprising that God, in creating me, would imprint this idea in me, so it may remain as a stamp left by the Creator on me, his creation. It’s also not necessary for this stamp to be something different from the work itself; it’s very credible (only because God created me) that I am made in his likeness and image. The same likeness that contains the idea of God is perceived by me with the same faculty I use to perceive myself. [54] That is to say, while I reflect on myself, I not only realize that I am an imperfect being, dependent on something else, and a being that desires more and better things endlessly; but I also simultaneously understand that He, on whom I depend, holds within him all those desired things (not only endlessly and potentially, but) actually, endlessly; and therefore, he is God. The crux of this * argument lies in the fact that I find it impossible for me to be of the same nature I am, namely having the idea of a God within me, unless there truly exists a God, a God (I say) that very same God whose idea I have in my mind (that is, possessing all those perfections that I cannot comprehend, but can, in a way, reflect on them) and who is not subject to any defects.

By which ’tis evident that God is no Deceiver; for ’tis manifest by the Light of Nature, that all fraud and deceit depends on some defect. But before I prosecute this any farther, or pry into other Truthes which may be deduced from this, I am willing here to stop, and dwell upon the Contemplation of this God, to[55] Consider with my self His Divine Attributes, to behold, admire, and adore the Loveliness of this Immense light, as much as possibly I am able to accomplish with my dark Understanding. For as by Faith we believe that the greatest happiness of the next Life consists alone in the Contemplation of the Divine Majesty, so we find by Experience that now we receive from thence the greatest pleasure, whereof we are capable in this Life; Tho it be much more Imperfect then that in the Next.

It's clear that God is not a Deceiver; because it’s obvious from the Light of Nature that all fraud and deceit rely on some defect. But before I go any further or explore other Truths that might come from this, I want to pause here and reflect on this God, to[55] consider His Divine Attributes, to see, admire, and worship the beauty of this Immense light as much as I can with my dark understanding. Just as we believe that the greatest happiness of the next Life is found only in the Contemplation of the Divine Majesty, we also find through Experience that we get our greatest pleasure from this now, even though it’s much more Imperfect than what awaits us in the Next.


Meditation IV.
Of Truth and Falshood.

Of late it has been so common with me to withdraw my Mind from my sences, and I have so throughly consider’d how few things there are appertaining to Bodies that are truly perceived, and that there are more Things touching Mans mind, and yet more concerning God, which are well known; that now without any difficulty I can turn my[56] Thoughts from things sensible, to those which are only Intelligible, and Abstracted from Matter. And truely I have a much more distinct Idea of a Mans mind (as it is a Thinking Thing, having no Corporeal Dimensions of Length, Breadth, and Thickness, nor having any other Corporeal Quality) then the Idea of any Corporeal Thing can be. And when I reflect upon my self, and consider how that I doubt, that is, am an imperfect dependent Being, I from hence Collect such a clear and distinct Idea of an Independent perfect Being, which is God, and from hence only that I have such an Idea, that is, because I that have this Idea do my self Exist; I do so clearly conclude that God also Exists, and that on him my Being depends each Minute; That I am Confident nothing can be known more Evidently and Certainly by Humane Understanding.

Recently, I've been pulling my mind away from my senses, and I've really thought about how few things related to bodies are truly perceived, while there are many things about the human mind, and even more about God, that are well understood. Now I can easily shift my thoughts from the physical to those that are just intelligible and abstracted from matter. Honestly, I have a much clearer idea of the human mind (as a thinking entity, without corporeal dimensions of length, breadth, and thickness, nor any other physical qualities) than I do of any physical thing. When I reflect on myself and recognize that I have doubts, meaning I am an imperfect dependent being, I derive a clear and distinct idea of an independent perfect being, which is God. It’s because I have this idea, which means I exist, that I confidently conclude that God exists too, and that my existence depends on Him every minute. I am certain that nothing can be known more evidently and certainly by human understanding.

And now I seem to perceive a Method by which, (from this Contemplation of the true God, in whom the Treasures of Knowledge and Wisdome are Hidden) I may attain the Knowledge of other Things.

And now I seem to see a way by which, (from this reflection on the true God, in whom the treasures of knowledge and wisdom are hidden) I can gain the knowledge of other things.

And first, I know ’tis impossible that this God should deceive me; For in all[57] cheating and deceipt there is something of imperfection; and tho to be able to deceive may seem to be an Argument of ingenuity and power, yet without doubt to have the Will of deceiving is a sign of Malice and Weakness, and therefore is not Incident to God.

And first, I know it's impossible for this God to deceive me; for in all cheating and deceit, there is something imperfect. And though being able to deceive might seem like a sign of cleverness and power, without a doubt, having the will to deceive is a sign of malice and weakness, and therefore it does not apply to God.

I have also found in my self a Judicative faculty, which certainly (as all other things I possess) I have received from God; and seeing he will not deceive me, he has surely given me such a Judgement, that I can never Err, whilst I make a Right Use of it. Of which truth I can make no doubt, unless it seems, that From hence it will follow, That therefore I can never Err; for if whatever I have, I have from God, and if he gave me no Faculty of Erring, I may seem not to be able to Err. And truly so it is whilst I think upon God, and wholly convert my self to the consideration of him, I find no occasion of Error or Deceit; but yet when I return to the Contemplation of my self, I find my self liable to Innumerable Errors. Enquiring into the cause of which, I find in my self an Idea, not only a real and positive one of a God, that is, of a Being infinitely perfect,[58] but also (as I may so speak) a Negative Idea of Nothing; that is to say, I am so constituted between God and Nothing or between a perfect Being and No-being, that as I am Created by the Highest Being, I have nothing in Me by which I may be deceived or drawn into Error; but as I pertake in a manner of Nothing, or of a No-Being, that is, as I my self am not the Highest Being, and as I want many perfections, ’tis no Wonder that I should be Deceived.

I have also discovered within myself a Judicative faculty, which I know (like everything else I have) comes from God; and since he will not deceive me, he has surely given me such a Judgement that I can never Err as long as I use it Rightly. I can have no doubt about this truth, unless it seems that it leads to the idea that I can never Err; for if everything I have comes from God, and if he didn't give me any Faculty for Erring, it might appear that I can’t Err at all. And indeed, while I reflect on God and fully turn my attention to him, I find no reason for Error or Deceit; but when I shift back to Contemplating myself, I realize I am prone to Innumerable Errors. When I examine the cause of this, I find in myself an Idea, not just a real and positive one of a God, which is an Infinitely Perfect Being,[58] but also (if I may put it this way) a Negative Idea of Nothing; that is, I exist in a state between God and Nothing or between a perfect Being and No-being, so that as I am Created by the Highest Being, I have nothing in me that could lead me to be deceived or fall into Error; however, since I partake in a sense of Nothing or No-Being, meaning that I am not the Highest Being and I lack many perfections, it’s no surprise that I could be Deceived.

By which I understand that Error * (as it is Error) is not any real Being dependant on God, but it is only a Defect; And that therefore to make me Err there is not requisite a faculty of Erring given me by God, but only it so happens that I Err meerly because the Judicative faculty, which he has given me, is not Infinite.

By this, I understand that Error * (as it is Error) is not a real Being dependent on God, but rather it is just a Defect; and therefore, for me to Err, there is no need for a faculty of Erring provided to me by God, but it simply happens that I Err merely because the Judicative faculty he has given me is not Infinite.

But yet this Account is not fully satisfactory; for Error is not only a meer Negation, but ’tis a Privation, or a want of a certain Knowledge, which ought (as it were) to be in me. And when I consider the Nature of God, it seems impossible that he should give me any faculty which is not perfect in its kind, or which should want any of its due perfections; for if by[59] how much the more skilful the Workman is, by so much the Perfecter Works proceed from him. What can be made by the Great Maker of all things which is not fully perfect? For I cannot Doubt but God may Create me so that I may never be deceived, neither can I doubt but that he Wills whatever is Best; Is it therefore better for me to be deceived, or not to be deceived?

But this account is not entirely satisfactory; because Error is not just a mere Negation, but it is a Privation, or a lack of a certain Knowledge that ought (so to speak) to be within me. And when I think about the Nature of God, it seems impossible that he would give me any ability that is not perfect in its kind, or that lacks any of its proper perfections; because if by[59] how much more skilled the Creator is, the more perfect the works that come from him must be. What could the Great Maker of everything produce that is not completely perfect? For I cannot doubt that God can Create me in such a way that I may never be deceived, nor can I doubt that he wants whatever is best; is it therefore better for me to be deceived, or not to be deceived?

These things when I Consider more heedfully, it comes into my Mind, First, that ’tis no cause of Admiration that God should do Things whereof I can give no account, nor must I therefore doubt his Being, because there are many things done by him, and I not comprehend Why or How they are done; for seeing I now know that my Nature is very Weak and Finite, and that the Nature of God is Immense, Incomprehensible, Infinite; from hence I must fully, understand, that he can do numberless things, the Causes whereof lie hidden to Me. Upon which account only I esteem all those Causes which are Drawn from the End (viz. Final Causes) as of no use in Natural Philosophy, for I cannot without Rashness Think my[60] self able to Discover Gods Designes.

When I think about these things more carefully, it occurs to me first that it's not surprising that God does things I can't explain, and I shouldn't doubt his Being just because there are many things he does that I don't understand Why or How they happen. I now realize that my Nature is very Weak and Finite, while God's Nature is Immense, Incomprehensible, and Infinite; therefore, I must completely understand that he can do countless things whose Causes are hidden from me. For this reason, I consider all those Causes drawn from the End (i.e., Final Causes) to be of no value in Natural Philosophy, because I cannot, without being reckless, think of myself as able to discover God's intentions.

I perceive this also, that whenever we endeavour to know whether the Works of God are perfect, we must not Respect any one kind of Creature singly, but the Whole Universe of Beings; for perhaps what (if considered alone) may Deservedly seem Imperfect, yet (as it is a part of the World) is most perfect; and tho since I have doubted of all things, I have discover’d nothing certainly to Exist, but my self, and God, yet since I have Consider’d the Omnipotency of God, I cannot deny, but that many other things are made (or at least, may be made) by him, so that I my self may be a part of this Universe.

I also understand that whenever we try to determine whether the Works of God are perfect, we shouldn't focus on any one type of creature alone, but look at the Whole Universe of Beings; because what might seem Imperfect when viewed individually may actually be perfect as a part of the World. Even though I have doubted everything, and found nothing certain to Exist except myself and God, I have recognized the Omnipotency of God and cannot deny that many other things are created (or at least, can be created) by him, which means I could be a part of this Universe.

Furthermore, coming nigher to my self, and enquiring what these Errors of mine, are (which are the Only Arguments of my Imperfection) * I find them to depend on two concurring Causes, on my faculty of Knowing, and on my faculty of Choosing or Freedome of my Will, that is to say, from my Understanding, and my Will together. For by my Understanding alone I only perceive Ideas, whereon I make Judgments, wherein (precisely so taken) there can be no Error, properly so called; for tho perhaps there may be numberless things, whose Ideas I have not in Me, yet I am not properly to be said Deprived of them, but only negatively wanting them; and I cannot prove that God ought to have given me a greater faculty of Knowing. And tho I understand him to be a skilful Workman, yet I cannot Think, that he ought to have put all those perfections in each Work of his singly, with which he might have endowed some of them.

Furthermore, as I get closer to understanding myself and question what these Errors of mine are (which are the only indicators of my Imperfection), I find that they depend on two contributing factors: my ability to Know and my ability to Choose or the Freedom of my Will. In other words, it comes from my Understanding and my Will together. By my Understanding alone, I can only perceive Ideas, which I then make Judgments about, in which case, taken in this way, there can be no Error, properly speaking; because although there may be countless things whose Ideas I do not have within me, I cannot be said to be Deprived of them in a proper sense, but only negatively lacking them. I cannot prove that God ought to have given me a greater capacity for Knowing. And even though I understand him to be a skilled Creator, I cannot think that he ought to have given all those perfections to each of his works individually, which he could have endowed some of them with instead.

Neither can I complain that God has not given me a Will, or Freedom of Choise, large and perfect enough; for I have experienced that ’tis Circumscribed by no Bounds.

Neither can I complain that God has not given me a Will or Freedom of Choice that is large and perfect enough; for I have experienced that it is Circumscribed by no Bounds.

And ’tis worth our taking notice, that I have no other thing in me so perfect and so Great, but I Understand that there may be Perfecter and Greater, for if (for Example) I consider the Faculty of Understanding, I presently perceive that in me ’tis very small and Finite, and also at the same time I form to my self an Idea of an other Understanding not only much Greater, but the Greatest and Infinite, which I perceive to belong to God. In the same manner if I enquire into memory or imagination or any[61]
[62]
other faculties, I find them in my self Weak and Circumscribed, but in God I Understand them to be Infinite, there is therefore only my Will or Freedome of Choice, which I find to be so Great, that I cannot frame to my self an Idea of One Greater, so that ’tis by this chiefly by which I Understand my self to Bear the likeness and Image of God. For tho the Will in God be without comparison Greater then Mine, both as to the Knowledge and Power which are Joyn’d therewith, which make it more strong and Effective, and also as to the Object thereof, for God can apply himself to more things then I can. Yet being taken Formally and Precisely Gods Will seems no greater then Mine. For the Freedome of Will consists only in this, that we can Do, or not Do such a Thing (that is, affirm or deny, prosecute or avoid) or rather in this Only, that we are so carried to a Thing which is proposed by Our Intellect to Affirm or Deny, Prosecute or Shun, that we are sensible, that we are not Determin’d to the Choice or Aversion thereof, by any outward Force.

It's worth noting that I don't have anything in me so perfect and so great, but I understand that there may be perfecter and greater things. For example, when I think about the faculty of understanding, I quickly realize that mine is very small and finite. At the same time, I imagine another understanding that is not only much greater, but the greatest and infinite, which I perceive belongs to God. Similarly, if I look into memory or imagination or any[61]
[62]
other faculties, I find them in myself weak and circumscribed, but in God I understand them to be infinite. Therefore, the only thing I find to be so great that I cannot imagine anything greater is my will or freedom of choice, which is chiefly how I understand that I bear the likeness and image of God. For although the will in God is incomparably greater than mine, in terms of the knowledge and power that accompany it, making it more strong and effective, and regarding its object, since God can engage with more things than I can, when looked at formally and precisely, God's will seems no greater than mine. For the freedom of will consists only in this: that we can do or not do something (that is, affirm or deny, prosecute or avoid), or rather, it is only in this—that we are so driven to a thing proposed by our intellect to affirm or deny, prosecute or shun, that we are aware that we are not determined in our choice or aversion to it by any external force.

Neither is it Requisite to make one Free that he should have an Inclination to both sides. For on the contrary, by how much[63] the more strongly I am inclined to one side (whether it be that I evidently perceive therein Good or Evil, or Whether it be that God has so disposed my Inward Thoughts) By so much the more Free am I in my Choice.

It's not necessary to make someone Free just so they have an Inclination toward both sides. In fact, the stronger my inclination is toward one side (whether I clearly see good or evil in it, or if God has arranged my inner thoughts this way), the more Free I am in my Choice.

Neither truly do Gods Grace or Natural Knowledge take away from my Liberty, but rather encrease and strengthen it. For that indifference which I find in my self, when no Reason inclines me more to one side, then to the other, is the meanest sort of Liberty, and is so far from being a sign of perfection, that it only argues a defect or negation of Knowledge; for if I should always Clearly see what were True and Good I should never deliberate in my Judgement or Choice, and Consequently, tho I were perfectly Free, yet I should never be Indifferent.

Neither truly do God's Grace or Natural Knowledge take away from my Liberty, but rather increase and strengthen it. The indifference I feel within myself, when no Reason pushes me more towards one side than the other, represents the lowest form of Liberty. It's far from being a sign of perfection; instead, it only highlights a defect or absence of Knowledge. For if I could always clearly see what is True and Good, I wouldn't need to deliberate in my Judgement or Choice, and therefore, even if I were perfectly Free, I wouldn't be Indifferent.

From all which, I perceive that neither the Power of Willing precisely so taken, which I have from God, is the Cause of my Errors, it being most full and perfect in its kind; Neither also the Power of Understanding, for whatever I Understand (since ’tis from God that I Understand it) I understand aright, nor can I be therein Deceived.

From all of this, I see that neither the Power of Willing precisely as it is given to me by God is the Cause of my Errors, since it is most full and perfect in its essence; nor is the Power of Understanding, because whatever I Understand (since it comes from God that I Understand it) I understand aright, and I cannot be Deceived in this.

[64]

[64]

From Whence therefore proceed all my Errors? To which, I answer, that they proceed from hence only, that seeing the Will expatiates it self farther then the Understanding, I keep it not within the same bounds with my Understanding, but often extend it to those things which I Understand not, to which things it being Indifferent, it easily Declines from what is True and Good; and consequently I am Deceived and Commit sin. * Thus, for example, when lately I felt my self to enquire, Whether any thing doth Exist, and found that from my setting my self to Examine such a thing, it evidently follows that I my self Exist, I could not but Judge, what I so clearly Understood, to be true, not that I was forced thereto by any outward impulse, but because a strong Propension in my Will did follow this Great Light in my Understanding, so that I believed it so much the more freely and willingly, by how much the less indifferent I was thereto. But now I understand, not only, that I Exist as I am a Thing that Thinks, but I also meet with a certain Idea of a Corporeal Nature, and it so happens that I doubt, whether that Thinking Nature that is in me be Different[65] from that Corporeal Nature, or Whether they are both the same: but in this I suppose that I have found no Argument to incline me either ways, and therefore I am Indifferent to affirm or deny either, or to Judge nothing of either; But this indifferency extends it self not only to those things of which I am clearly ignorant, but generally to all those things which are not so very evidently known to me at the Time when my Will Deliberates of them; for tho never so probable Guesses incline me to one side, yet the Knowing that they are only Conjectures, and not indubitable reasons, is enough to Draw my Assent to the Contrary Part. Which Lately I have sufficiently experienced, when I supposed all those things (which formerly I assented to as most True) as very False, for this Reason only that I found my self able to doubt of them in some manner.

From where do all my errors come? I answer that they come from here, because the will goes beyond the understanding. I don't keep it within the same limits as my understanding, but often extend it to things I don't understand. Since these things are indifferent to me, I easily stray from what is true and good; and as a result, I'm deceived and sin. * For example, when I recently found myself questioning whether anything exists, and discovered that by examining such a question, it clearly followed that I exist, I couldn't help but judge what I understood so clearly to be true. I wasn't forced to think this by any external force, but because a strong inclination in my will followed this great insight in my understanding, I believed it more freely and willingly the less indifferent I was about it. Now, I understand not only that I exist as a thinking being, but I also have a certain idea of physical nature, and I find myself doubting whether the thinking nature in me is different from that physical nature, or if they are both the same; in this, I suppose I have found no argument to tilt me either way, and therefore I am indifferent to affirm or deny either, or to judge nothing of either. But this indifference extends not only to those things of which I am clearly ignorant, but generally to all those things which are not very clearly known to me at the time my will deliberates on them; for even if highly probable guesses push me to one side, knowing they are only conjectures and not certain reasons is enough to pull my agreement toward the opposite side. Recently, I have felt this clearly when I regarded all those things (which I had previously agreed were the most true) as very false, simply because I found myself able to doubt them in some way.

If I abstain from passing my Judgment, when I do not clearly and distinctly enough perceive what is Truth, ’tis evident that I do well, and that I am not deceived: But if I affirm or deny, then ’tis that I abuse the freedome of my will, and if I turn my self to that part which is false, I am deceived;[66] but if I embrace the contrary Part, ’tis but by chance that I light on the Truth, yet I shall not therefore be Blameless, for ’tis Manifest by the light of Nature that the Perception of the Understanding ought to preceed the Determination of the Will. And ’tis in this abuse of Free-Will that That Privation consists, which Constitutes Error; I say there is a Privation in the Action as it proceeds from Me, but not in the Faculty which I have received from God; nor in the Action as it depends on him.

If I hold back from making my Judgment, when I do not clearly and distinctly enough recognize what is Truth, it’s clear that I’m doing well and that I’m not deceived: But if I affirm or deny, then I’m misusing the freedom of my will, and if I lean towards what is false, I am deceived;[66] but if I embrace the contrary part, then it’s just by chance that I find the Truth, yet I won't be free of blame, for it’s clear by the light of Nature that the Perception of Understanding should come before the Determination of the Will. And it’s in this misuse of Free Will that that Privation exists, which represents Error; I say there is a Privation in the Action as it comes from me, but not in the Faculty which I have received from God; nor in the Action as it depends on Him.

Neither have I any Reason to Complain that God has not given me a larger Intellective Faculty, or more Natural Light, for ’tis a necessary Incident to a finite Understanding that it should not Understand All things, and ’tis Incident to a Created Understanding to be Finite: and I have more Reason to thank him for what he has bestowed upon me (tho he owed me nothing) then to think my self Robbed by him of those things which he never gave me.

Neither do I have any reason to complain that God hasn't given me a larger intellect or more natural insight, because it's a necessary fact of having a finite understanding that one cannot understand everything, and it's inherent to a created understanding to be finite. I have more reason to thank Him for what He has bestowed upon me (even though He owed me nothing) than to feel robbed by Him of those things which He never gave me.

Nor have I Reason to Complain that he has given me a Will larger then my Understanding: for seeing the Will Consists in one thing only, and as it were in an Indivisible (viz. to Will, or not to Will) it seems[67] contrary to its nature that it should be less then ’tis; and certainly by how much the Greater it is, so much the more Thankful I ought to be to him; that Gave it me.

I have no reason to complain that he has given me a Will that’s beyond my Understanding: because the Will consists of just one thing, which is basically indivisible (namely, to Will or not to Will), it seems[67] contrary to its nature for it to be less than it is; and certainly, the greater it is, the more Thankful I should be to him for giving it to me.

Neither can I Complain that God concurrs with me in the Production of those Voluntary Actions or Judgements in which I am deceived: for those Acts as they depend on God are altogether True and Good; and I am in some measure more perfect in that I can so Act, then if I could not: for that Privation, in which the Ratio Formalis of Falshood and Sin consists, wants not the Concourse of God; For it is not A Thing, and having respect to him as its Cause, ought not to be called Privation, but Negation; for certainly ’tis no Imperfection in God, that he has given me a freedome of Assenting or not Assenting to some things, the clear and distinct Knowledge whereof he has not Imparted to my Understanding; but certainly ’tis an Imperfection in me, that I abuse this liberty, and pass my Judgement on those things which I do not Rightly Understand.

I can’t complain that God agrees with me in the choices or judgments I make when I’m mistaken. Those actions, since they depend on God, are completely true and good. I am somewhat more perfect for being able to act this way than if I couldn’t, because the absence of the qualities that define falsehood and sin still involves God. It’s not a thing, and considering God as its cause, it shouldn’t be called absence but rather negation. It’s certainly not a flaw in God that He has given me the freedom to agree or disagree with certain things, the clear and distinct knowledge of which He hasn't shared with my understanding. However, it certainly is a flaw in me that I misuse this freedom and judge things I don’t fully understand.

Yet I see that ’tis Possible with God to effect that (tho I should remain Free, and[68] of a Finite Knowledge) I should never Err, that is, if he had endowed my Understanding with a clear and distinct Knowledge of all things whereof I should ever have an Occasion of deliberating; or if he had only so firmly fix’d in my Mind, that I should never forget, this, That I must never Judge of a thing which I do not clearly and distinctly Understand; Either of which things had God done, I easily perceive that I (as consider’d in my self) should be more perfect then now I am, yet nevertheless I cannot deny but that there may be a greater perfection in the whole Universe of Things, for that some of its parts are Obnoxious to Errors, and some not, then if they were all alike. And I have no Reason to Complain, that it has pleased God, that I should Act on the Stage of this World a Part not the chief and most perfect of all; Or that I should not be able to abstain from Error in the first way above specifi’d, which depends upon the Evident Knowledge of those things whereof I deliberate; Yet that I may abstain from Error by the other means abovemention’d, which depends only on this, That I Judge not of any Thing, the truth whereof is not Evident.[69] For tho I have experienced in my self this Infirmity, that I cannot always be intent upon one and the same Knowledge, yet I may by a continued and often repeated Meditation bring this to pass, that as often as I have use of this Rule I may Remember it, by which means I may Get (as it were) an habit of not erring.

Yet I see that it’s possible with God to make it so that (even though I would remain free and[68] have finite knowledge) I would never err. This would happen if He endowed my understanding with a clear and distinct knowledge of everything I would ever need to deliberate on; or if He simply made it firmly established in my mind that I must never judge something that I do not clearly and distinctly understand. If God had done either of these things, I can easily see that I (when considering myself) would be more perfect than I am now, yet I cannot deny that there may be a greater perfection in the whole universe of things, since some of its parts are prone to errors while others are not, compared to if they were all the same. And I have no reason to complain that it pleases God for me to play a not chief and most perfect part on the stage of this world; or that I am unable to avoid error in the first way mentioned above, which depends on having evident knowledge of the things I deliberate on. However, I can avoid error through the other means mentioned earlier, which relies only on this: that I do not judge anything whose truth is not evident.[69] Though I have experienced this infirmity in myself, that I cannot always focus on one and the same knowledge, I can, through continued and frequent meditation, make it so that whenever I need this rule, I can remember it. This way, I can develop an habit of not erring.

In which thing seeing, the greatest and chief perfection of Man consists, I repute my self to have gain’d much by this days Meditation, for that therein I have discover’d the Cause of Error, and Falshood; which certainly can be no other then what I have now Declared; for whenever in Passing my Judgement, I bridle my Will so that it extend it self only to those things which I clearly and distinctly perceive, it is impossible that I can Err. For doubtless All clear and distinct Perception is something, and therefore cannot proceed from Nothing, but must necessarily have God for its Author (God, I say, Who is infinitely Perfect, and who cannot Deceive) and therefore it Must be True.

In realizing this, I believe that the greatest and most important perfection of humanity comes from today’s meditation. Through this reflection, I’ve found the cause of error and falsehood, which can only be what I have just stated. Whenever I control my will and focus solely on things that I clearly and distinctly perceive, it becomes impossible for me to be wrong. Clearly and distinctly perceived truths exist; they cannot come from nothing and must necessarily be authored by God, who is infinitely perfect and cannot deceive. Therefore, these truths must be true.

Nor have I this Day learnt only what I must beware off that I be not deceived, but also what I must Do to Discover Truth,[70] for That I shall certainly find, if I fully Apply my self to those things only, which I perfectly understand; and if I distinguish between those and what I apprehend but confusedly and obscurely; Both which hereafter I shall endeavour.

Nor have I learned today just what I must beware of to avoid being deceived, but also what I must do to uncover truth,[70] because I will definitely find that if I fully focus on those things only that I thoroughly understand; and if I make a distinction between those and what I grasp but confusedly and obscurely; both of which I will strive for hereafter.


Meditate. V.
Of the Essence of Things Materials. And herein Again of God. And that he does Live.

There are yet remaining many Things concerning Gods Attributes, and many things concerning the nature of my self or of my Mind, which ought to be searched into: but these perhaps I shall set upon at some other Opportunity. And at Present nothing seems to me more requisite (feeling I have discover’d what I must avoid, and what I must Do for the Attaining of Truth) then that I imploy my Endeavours to free my self from those doubts into which I have lately[71] fallen, and that I try whether I can have any certainty of Material Things.

There are still many things to explore about God's attributes and many things about myself or my mind that need investigation; however, I may address those at another time. Right now, nothing seems more important to me (since I realize what I need to avoid and what I need to do to attain truth) than to focus my efforts on freeing myself from the doubts I've recently[71] encountered and to see if I can find any certainty about material things.

But before I enquire whether there be any such things Really Existent without Me, I ought to consider the Ideas of those things, as they are in my Thoughts and try which of them are Distinct, which confused.

But before I ask if there are any things Really Existent without Me, I should think about the Ideas of those things as they exist in my mind and see which of them are Distinct and which are confused.

In which search I find that I distinctly imagine Quantity, that which Philosophers commonly call continued, that is to say, the Extension of that Quantity or thing continued into Length, Breadth, and Thickness, I can count in it divers Parts, to which parts I can assign Bigness, Figure, Position, and Local Motion, to which Local Motion I can assign Duration. Neither are only these Generals plainly discover’d and known by Me, but also by attentive Consideration, I perceive Innumerable particulars concerning the Shapes, Number, and Motion of These Bodies; The Truth whereof is so evident, and agreeable to my Nature, that when I first discover’d them, I seemed not so much to have Learnt any thing that is new, as to have only remembred what I have known before, or only to have thought on those things which were in me before, tho this be[72] the first time that I have examin’d them so diligently.

In my search, I clearly perceive Quantity, which philosophers often refer to as continued. This means the Extension of that Quantity or object continued into Length, Breadth, and Thickness. I can identify various parts within it, to which I can assign Size, Shape, Position, and Local Motion, and to that Local Motion, I can assign Duration. Not only are these General concepts clearly recognized and understood by me, but through careful consideration, I also notice countless specifics regarding the Shapes, Numbers, and Movements of these Bodies. The truth of this is so obvious and aligns so well with my Nature that when I first discovered them, it felt less like I had learned something new and more like I had simply remembered what I already knew or had reflected on things that were already within me, even though this is the first time I’ve examined them so thoroughly.

One thing there is worthy my Consideration, which is, that I find in my self innumerable Ideas of certain things, which tho perhaps they exist no where without Me, yet they cannot Be said to be Nothing; and tho they are Thought upon by me at my will and pleasure, yet they are not made by Me, but have their own True and Immutable Natures. As when, for example, * I Imagine a Triangle, tho perhaps such a Figure Exists no where out of my Thoughts, nor ever will Exist, yet the Nature thereof is determinate, and its Essence or Form is Immutable and Eternal, which is neither made by me, nor depends on my mind, as appears for that many properties may be demonstrated of this Triangle, viz. That its three Angles are equal to two right ones, that to its Greatest Angle the Greatest side is subtended, and such like, which I now clearly know whether I will or not, tho before I never thought on them, when I imagine a Triangle, and consequently they could not be invented by Me. And ’tis nothing to the purpose for me to say, that perhaps this Idea of a[73] Triangle came to me by the Organs of sense, because I have sometimes seen bodies of a Triangular Shape; for I can think of Innumerable other Figures, which I cannot suspect to have come in through my senses, and yet I can Demonstrate various properties of them, as well as of a Triangle, which certainly are all true, seeing I know them clearly, and therefore they are something, and not a meer Nothing, for ’tis Evident that what is true is something.

One thing that's worth my consideration is that I find countless Ideas of certain things within myself. Even though they might not exist anywhere outside of me, they can't be considered Nothing; and although I can think about them at my will and pleasure, they are not created by me, but have their own True and Immutable Natures. For example, when I Imagine a Triangle, even if such a Figure doesn't exist outside of my Thoughts and probably never will exist, its Nature is defined, and its Essence or Form is Immutable and Eternal. This is neither made by me nor depends on my mind, because many properties can be demonstrated about this Triangle, such as that its three angles equal two right angles, that the largest angle is opposite the longest side, and so on. I now clearly know these facts regardless of whether I will or not, even though I had never thought of them before I imagined a Triangle, so they couldn’t have been invented by me. It doesn't matter for me to claim that this Idea of a[73] Triangle came to me through senses, just because I've sometimes seen objects with a Triangular Shape; because I can think of countless other Figures, which I can't assume came through my senses, and yet I can Demonstrate various properties of them just like I can for a Triangle, which are all certainly true, since I know them clearly, and therefore they are something, not just Nothing, because it’s clear that what is true is something.

And now I have sufficiently Demonstrated, that what I clearly perceive, is True; And tho I had not demonstrated it, yet such is the Nature of my Mind, that I could not but give my Assent to what I so perceive, at least, as long as I so perceive it; and I remember (heretofore when I most of all relied on sensible Objects) that I held those Truths for the most certain which I evidently perceived, such as are concerning Figures, Numbers, with other parts of Arithmetick, and Geometry, as also whatever relates to pure and abstracted Mathematicks.

And now I have clearly shown that what I clearly perceive is true; and even though I hadn't demonstrated it, my mind can’t help but agree with what I perceive, at least as long as I perceive it that way; and I remember when I relied most on sensible objects that I considered those truths to be the most certain which I evidently perceived, such as those related to figures, numbers, and other aspects of arithmetic and geometry, as well as anything related to pure and abstract mathematics.

Now therefore, if from this alone, That I can frame the Idea of a Thing in my Mind, it follows, That whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive belonging to a thing, does[74] Really belong to it; Cannot I from hence draw an Argument to Prove the Existence of a God? Certainly I find the Idea of a God, or infinitely perfect Being, as naturally in me, as the Idea of any Figure, or Number; and I as clearly and distinctly understand that it appertains to his Nature Always to Be, as I know that what I can demonstrate of a Mathematical Figure or Number belongs to the Nature of that Figure or Number: so that, tho all things which I have Meditated upon these three or four days were not true, yet I may well be as certain of the Existence of a God, as I have hitherto been of Mathematical Truths.

Now therefore, if from this alone, That I can form the idea of something in my mind, it follows, That whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive as part of a thing, does[74] actually belong to it; Can I not use this to argue for the Existence of a God? Certainly, I find the Idea of a God, or infinitely perfect Being, just as naturally within me as the Idea of any Figure or Number; and I understand just as clearly and distinctly that it is part of His Nature to Always Be, just as I know that what I can demonstrate about a Mathematical Figure or Number belongs to the Nature of that Figure or Number: so that, even if everything I have Meditated on these past three or four days were not true, I can still be as certain of the Existence of a God as I have been of Mathematical Truths.

Doubt. Yet this Argument at first sight appears not so evident, but looks rather like a sophism; for seeing I am used in all other things to Distinguish Existence from Essence, I can easily perswade my self that the Existence of God may be distinguish’d from his Essence, so that I may Imagine God not to Exist.

Doubt. At first glance, this argument doesn't seem so obvious and instead feels like a sophism; since I usually distinguish existence from essence in all other matters, I can easily convince myself that the existence of God can be distinguished from his essence, allowing me to imagine God not existing.

Solution. But considering it more strictly, ’tis manifest, that the Existence of God can no more be seperated from his Essence, then the Equality of the Three Angles to two right ones can be seperated from the Essence of a Triangle, or then the Idea of a Mountain[75] can be without the Idea of a valley; so that ’tis no less a Repugnancy to think of a God (that is, A Being infinitely perfect) who wants Existence (that is, who wants a Perfection) then to think of a Mountain, to which there is no Valley adjoyning.

Solution. But looking at it more closely, it’s clear that the Existence of God cannot be separated from His Essence, just as the Equality of the Three Angles to two right angles cannot be separated from the Essence of a Triangle, or the Idea of a Mountain[75] cannot exist without the Idea of a valley; thus, it’s just as contradictory to think of a God (that is, A Being infinitely perfect) who lacks Existence (that is, who lacks a Perfection) as it is to think of a Mountain that has no Valley adjoining.

Doubt. But what if I cannot imagine God but as Existing, or a Mountain without a Vally? yet supposing me to think of a Mountain with a Vally, it does not from thence follow, that there Is a Mountain in the World; so supposing me to think of a God as Existing, yet does it not follow that God Really Exists. For my Thought imposes no necessity on Things, and as I may imagine a Winged Horse, tho no Horse has Wings, so I may imagine an existing God, tho no God exist.

Doubt. But what if I can only picture God as Existing, or as a Mountain without a Valley? Even if I try to think of a Mountain with a Valley, it doesn’t mean there Is a Mountain in the World; similarly, even if I think of a God as Existing, it doesn’t mean that God Really Exists. My thoughts don’t make things necessary, and just as I can imagine a Winged Horse, even though no Horse has wings, I can also imagine an existing God, even though no God exists.

Solution. ’Tis true the Sophism seems to lie in this, yet tho I cannot conceive a Mountain but with a Vally, it does not from hence follow, that a Mountain or Vally do Exist, but this will follow, that whether a Mountain or a Vally do or do not Exist, yet they cannot be seperated: so from hence that I cannot think of God but as Existing, it follows that Existence is Inseperable from God, and therefore that he[76] Really Exists; Not because my Thought does all this, or Imposes any necessity on any Thing, but contrarily, because the necessity of the thing it self (viz. of Gods Existence) Determines me to think thus; for ’tis not in my Power to think a God without Existence (that is, A Being absolutely perfect without the Cheif Perfection) as it is in my Power to imagine a Horse either with or without Wings.

Solution. It’s true the Sophism seems to lie in this, yet even though I can't imagine a Mountain without a Valley, it doesn’t follow that a Mountain or Valley actually Exist. What does follow is that whether a Mountain or Valley does or does not Exist, they cannot be separated. From this, since I cannot think of God without also thinking of Existence, it follows that Existence is Inseparable from God, and therefore that He[76] Really Exists. Not because my Thought creates this or Imposes any necessity on anything, but rather because the necessity of the thing itself (i.e., of God’s Existence) Determines me to think this way; for it is not within my Power to think of a God without Existence (that is, A Being absolutely perfect without the Chief Perfection), as it is within my Power to imagine a Horse either with or without Wings.

Doubt. And here it cannot be said, that I am forced to suppose God Existing, after I have supposed him endowed with all Perfections, seeing Existence is one of them; but that my First Position (viz. His Absolute Perfection) is not necessary. Thus, for example, ’tis not necessary for me to think all Quadrilateral Figures inscribed in a Circle; But supposing that I think so, I am then necessitated to Confess a Rhombe Inscribed therein, and yet this is evidently False.

Doubt. Here, I can't say that I have to assume God exists after assuming He is endowed with all perfections, since existence is one of them; but that my first position (specifically His absolute perfection) is not necessary. For example, it's not necessary for me to think of all quadrilateral figures inscribed in a circle; but if I assume I think that, I am then required to acknowledge a rhombus inscribed within it, and yet this is clearly false.

Solution. For tho I am not forced at any time to think of a God; yet as often as I cast my Thoughts on a First and Cheif Being, and as it were bring forth out of the Treasury of my Mind an Idea thereof, I must of necessity attribute thereto all Manner of Perfections, tho I do not at that[77] time count them over, or Remark each single One; which necessity is sufficient to make me hereafter (when I come to consider Existence to be a Perfection) conclude Rightly, That the First and Chief Being does Exist. Thus, for example, I am not obliged at any time to imagine a Triangle, yet whenever I please to Consider of a Right-lined Figure having only three Angles, I am then necessitated to allow it all those Requisites from which I may argue rightly, That the Three Angles thereof are not Greater then Two Right Ones, Tho upon the first consideration this came not into my Thought. But when I enquire what Figures may be inscribed within a Circle, I am not at all necessitated to think that all Quadrilateral Figures are of that sort; neither can I possibly imagine this, whilst I admit of nothing, but what I clearly and distinctly Understand: and therefore there is a great Difference between these False suppositions, and True natural Ideas, the first and Chief; whereof is that of a God; For by many wayes I understand That not to be a Fiction depending on my Thought, but an Image of a True and Immutable Nature; As first, because I can think[78] of no other thing but God to Whose Essence Existence belongs. Next because I cannot Imagine Two or More Gods, and supposing that he is now only One, I may plainly perceive it necessary for Him to Have been from Eternity, and will Be to Eternity; And Lastly because I perceive many Other Things in God, Which I cannot Change, and from which I cannot Detract.

Solution. Even though I don't have to think about a God at any time, whenever I reflect on a First and Chief Being and pull an Idea of it from the depths of my Mind, I must attribute all kinds of Perfections to it, even if I don't list them out or identify each one individually at that moment. This necessity is enough to lead me later (when I consider Existence to be a Perfection) to rightly conclude that The First and Chief Being exists. For instance, I don’t need to imagine a Triangle at any time, but whenever I choose to think about a Right-lined Figure with just three Angles, I am then forced to acknowledge it has all those Requisites from which I can correctly conclude that The sum of its three angles is not greater than two right angles, even if that thought doesn’t occur to me at first. However, when I examine what Figures can be inscribed within a Circle, I am not required to believe that all Quadrilateral Figures fit that description; I can’t even imagine this while I only accept what I clearly and distinctly understand. Therefore, there is a significant difference between these False suppositions and True natural Ideas, the first and Chief, which is that of a God; because in many ways I understand That not to be a Fiction dependent on my Thought, but an Image of a True and Immutable Nature; Firstly, because I can't think of anything other than God to Whose Essence Existence belongs. Next, because I can't imagine Two or More Gods, and assuming there is only One now, I can clearly see it is necessary for Him to Have been from Eternity and will Be to Eternity; Lastly, because I perceive many other qualities in God that I cannot Change, and from which I cannot Subtract.

But whatever way of Argumentation I use, it comes All at last to this one Thing, That I am fully perswaded of the Truth of those things only, which appear to me clearly and distinctly. And tho some of those things, which I so perceive, are obvious to every Man, and some are only discover’d by Those that search more nighly, and enquire more carefully, yet when such truths are discover’d, they are esteem’d no less certain than the Others. For Example, Tho it do not so easily appear, that in a Rightangled Triangle, the square of the Base is equal to the squares of the sides, as it appears, that the Base is suspended under its Largest Angle, yet the first Proposition is no less certainly believed when once ’tis perceived, then this Last.

But no matter what argument I use, it ultimately boils down to this one thing: I am completely convinced of the truth of only those things that seem clear and distinct to me. And although some of those things I perceive are obvious to everyone, while others are only discovered by those who look more closely and investigate more carefully, once such truths are uncovered, they are regarded as no less certain than the others. For example, although it isn't immediately obvious that in a right-angled triangle, the square of the base is equal to the squares of the sides, as it is clear that the base is positioned under its largest angle, the first proposition is just as certainly believed once it is understood as this last one.

[79]

[79]

Thus in Reference to God; certainly, unless I am overrun with Prejudice, or have my thoughts begirt on all sides with sensible Objects, I should acknowledge nothing before or easier then him; For what is more self-evident then that there is a Chief Being, or then that a God (to whose essence alone Existence appertains) does Exist? And tho serious Consideration is required to perceive thus much, yet Now, I am not only equally certain of it, as of what seems most certain, but I perceive also that the Truth of other Things so depends on it, that without it nothing can ever be perfectly known.

So when it comes to God; definitely, unless I'm overwhelmed by prejudice, or have my thoughts completely surrounded by sensible objects, I should recognize nothing before or more obvious than him; for what is more self-evident than the existence of a Supreme Being, or that a God (whose essence alone signifies existence) does exist? And although it takes serious thought to grasp this much, right now, I am not only just as certain about it as I am about what seems most certain, but I also realize that the truth of other things depends so much on it that without it nothing can ever be fully known.

For tho my nature be such, that during the time of my Clear and Distinct Perception, I cannot but believe it true; yet my Nature is such also, that I cannot fix the Intention of my Mind upon one and the same thing alwayes, so as to perceive it clearly, and the Remembrance of what Judgement I have formerly made is often stirred up, when I cease attending to those reasons for which I passed such a Judgment, other Reasons may then be produced, which (if I did not know God) may easily move me in my Opinion; and by this[80] means I shall never attain to the true and certain Knowledge of any Thing, but Wandring and Unstable opinions. So, for example, when I consider the Nature of a Triangle, it plainly appears to me (as understanding the Principles of Geometry) that its three Angles are equal to two right ones; And this I must of necessity think True as long as I attend to the Demonstration thereof; but as soon as ever I withdraw my Mind from the Consideration of its Proof (altho I remember that I have once Clearly perceived it) yet perhaps I may doubt of Its Truth, being as yet Ignorant of a God; For I may perswade my self, that I am so framed by Nature, as to be deceived in those things which I imagine my self to perceive most evidently, Especially when I recollect, that heretofore I have often accounted many things True and Certain, which afterward upon other Reasons I have Judged as False. But when I perceive that there is a God; because at the same time I also Understand that all things Depend on Him, and that he is not a Deceiver; and when from hence I Collect that all those Things which I clearly and distinctly perceive are necessarily True;[81] tho I have no further Respects to those Reasons which induced me to believe it True, yet if I do but remember, that I have once clearly and distinctly perceived it, no Argument can be brought on the contrary, that shall make me doubt, but that I have true and certain Knowledge thereof; and not onely of that, but of all other Truths also which I remember that I have once Demonstrated, such as are Geometrical Propositions and the like.

For although my nature is such that during the time of my clear and distinct perception, I cannot help but believe it to be true; yet my nature is also such that I cannot keep my mind fixed on one thing all the time to perceive it clearly. The memory of judgments I've made in the past often comes to mind when I stop focusing on the reasons for those judgments, and other reasons can emerge that might easily sway my opinion if I did not know God. Because of this, I will never achieve true and certain knowledge of anything, only wandering and unstable opinions. For example, when I think about the nature of a triangle, it is clear to me (since I understand the principles of geometry) that its three angles equal two right angles. I must necessarily consider this true as long as I focus on the demonstration of it; however, as soon as I draw my mind away from considering its proof (even though I remember having clearly perceived it), I might doubt its truth, being still ignorant of God. I might convince myself that my nature is such that I can be deceived about those things I think I perceive most evidently, especially when I recall that in the past I often regarded many things as true and certain, which I later judged to be false based on other reasons. But when I realize that there is a God; because I also understand that all things depend on Him, and that He is not a deceiver; and from this, I conclude that everything I clearly and distinctly perceive is necessarily true; even if I do not refer back to the reasons that led me to believe it true, if I just remember that I once clearly and distinctly perceived it, no argument can be presented that causes me to doubt, as I have true and certain knowledge of it; and not just of that, but of all other truths that I remember having once demonstrated, like geometrical propositions and the like.

What now can be Objected against me? shall I say, that I am so made by Nature, as to be often deceived? No; For I now Know that I cannot be deceived in those Things, which I clearly Understand. Shall I say, that at other times I have esteem’d many Things True and Certain, which afterwards I found to be falsities? No; for I perceived none of those things clearly and distinctly, but being Ignorant of this Rule of Truth, I took them up for Reasons, which Reasons I afterward found to be Weak. What then can be said? Shall, I say, (as lately I objected) that Perhaps I am asleep, and that what I now think of is no more True, then the Dreams of People asleep? But this it self moves not my Opinion; for certainly tho[82] I were asleep, if any thing appear’d evident to my Understanding, ’twould be True.

What can be Objected against me now? Should I say that I’m just made by Nature to be easily deceived? No; because I now understand that I can't be deceived about the things I clearly understand. Should I claim that there have been times when I've believed many things were True and Certain, only to later find them as falsities? No; because I didn’t perceive any of those things clearly and distinctly, but was unaware of this Rule of Truth, so I accepted them based on reasons that later turned out to be Weak. So what can be said? Should I say (as I recently objected) that maybe I’m asleep, and that what I'm thinking now is no more True than the Dreams of people who are asleep? But even this doesn't change my Opinion; because certainly, even if I were asleep, if anything seemed evident to my Understanding, it would be True.

And Thus I Plainly see, that the Certainty and Truth of all Science Depends on the Knowledge of the True God, so that before I had Known Him, I did Know nothing; But now many things both of God himself, and of other Intellectual Things, as also of Corporeal nature, which is the Object of Mathematicks, may be Plainly Known and Certain to me.

And so I clearly see that the certainty and truth of all science depend on the knowledge of the true God. Before I knew Him, I knew nothing; but now I understand many things about God Himself, as well as other intellectual concepts and the physical nature, which is the focus of mathematics, and these can be clearly known and certain to me.


[83]

[83]

Meditation VI.
Of Physical Beings, and Their Existence: As Also of the Real Difference, Between Mind and Body.

It now remains that I examine whether any Corporeal Beings do Exist; And already I know that (as they are the Object of Pure Mathematicks) they May (at least) Exist, for I clearly and distinctly perceive them; and doubtless God is able to make, whatever I am able to perceive, and I never Judged any thing to be beyond his Power, but what was Repugnant to a distinct perception. Moreover, such Material Beings seem to Exist from the faculty of Imagination, which I find my self make use of, when I am conversant about them: for[84] if I attentively Consider what Imagination is, ’twill appear to be only a certain Application of our Cognoscitive or knowing Faculty to a Body or Object that is before it; and if it be before it, It must Exist.

It’s now time for me to look into whether any Corporeal Beings actually Exist; and I already know that (since they are the Object of Pure Mathematics) they May (at least) Exist, because I clearly and distinctly perceive them. Plus, I’m sure God is able to create anything that I can perceive, and I’ve never thought that anything was beyond his Power except for what is incompatible with a distinct perception. Also, these Material Beings seem to Exist because of the faculty of Imagination, which I notice I use when I think about them: for[84] if I take a close look at what Imagination is, it seems to be just a certain Application of our Cognoscitive or knowing Faculty to a Body or Object that is in front of it; and if it is in front of it, it must Exist.

But that this may be made more Plain, I must first examine the difference between Imagination, and pure Intellection, or Understanding. So, for example, when I Imagine a Triangle, I do not only Understand that it is a figure comprehended by three Lines, but I also behold with the eye of my mind those three lines as it were before Me, and this is that which I call imagination. But if I convert my Thoughts to a Chiliogone, or Figure consisting of a Thousand Angles, I know as well that this Is a figure comprehended by a Thousand sides, as I know that a Triangle is a Figure Consisting of three sides; but I do not in the same Manner Imagine, or behold as present those thousand sides, as I do the three sides of a Triangle. And tho at the time when I so think of a Chiliogone, I may confusedly represent to my self some Figure (because whenever I Think of a Corporeal Object, I am used to Imagine some Shape or other)[85] yet ’tis evident that this Representation is not a Chiliogone, because ’tis in nothing different from what I should Represent to my self if I thought of a Milion-angled figure, or any other Figure of More sides; Neither does such a Confused Representation help me in the least to know those Properties, by which a Chiliogone differs from other Polygones or Manyangled Figures. But if a Question be put concerning a Pentagone, I know I may Understand its Shape, as I Understand the Shape, of a Chiliogone, without the help of Imagination, but I can also imagine it, by applying the Eye of my Mind to its Five sides, and to the Area or space contained by Them; And herein I manifestly perceive that there is required a peculiar sort of Operation in the Mind to imagine a Thing, which I require not to Understand a Thing; which New Operation of the Mind plainly shews the difference between imagination and pure Intellection.

But to make this clearer, I first need to look at the difference between imagination and pure understanding. For example, when I imagine a triangle, I don’t just understand that it’s a figure made up of three lines, but I can also visualize those three lines in my mind’s eye as if they are right in front of me, and that’s what I call imagination. However, when I shift my thoughts to a chiliagon, which is a figure with a thousand angles, I know just as well that this is a figure made up of a thousand sides, just like I know a triangle is a figure with three sides; but I don’t visualize those thousand sides in the same way I do the three sides of a triangle. And even though when I think of a chiliagon I might vaguely picture some shape (since whenever I think of a physical object, I tend to imagine some form or another), it’s clear that this representation isn’t actually a chiliagon, as it doesn’t differ at all from what I would imagine if I were thinking of a million-angled figure or any other figure with more sides. Plus, this vague representation doesn’t help me understand the properties that distinguish a chiliagon from other polygons or many-angled figures. But if someone asks me about a pentagon, I know I can understand its shape just like I understand the shape of a chiliagon, without relying on imagination; but I can also imagine it by focusing my mind on its five sides and the area they enclose. In this, I can clearly see that there’s a specific kind of mental operation needed to imagine something, which isn’t necessary for understanding it; this new operation of the mind clearly shows the difference between imagination and pure understanding.

Besides this, I Consider that this Power of Imagination which is in me (as it differs from the Power of Understanding) does not appertain to the Essence of Me, that is, of my mind, for tho I wanted it, yet[86] certainly I should be the same He, that now I am: from whence it seems to follow, that it depends on something different from my self; and I easily perceive that if any Body whatever did Exist, to which my Mind were so conjoyn’d, that it may Apply it self when it pleased to Consider, or (as it were) Look into this Body; From hence, I say, I perceive It may so be, that by this very Body I may Imagine Corporeal Beings: So that this Manner of Thinking differs from pure Intellection only in this, that the Mind, when it Understands, does as it were turn it self, to it self, or Reflect on it self, and beholds some or other of those Ideas which are in it self; But when it Imagines, it Converts it self upon Body, and therein beholds something Conformable to that Idea, which it hath understood, or perceived by Sense.

Besides this, I believe that this Power of Imagination within me (which is different from the Power of Understanding) does not belong to the Essence of Me, meaning, of my mind. Even if I wanted it, I would still be the same He, that I am now: this suggests that it relies on something different from myself; and I can easily see that if any Body were to Exist, to which my Mind was so joined that it could choose to Consider or (so to speak) Look into this Body; I perceive that it could be possible for me to Imagine Corporeal Beings through this very Body: So, this Manner of Thinking differs from pure Intellection only in that the Mind, when it Understands, turns inward, reflecting on itself and observing some of the Ideas within it; but when it Imagines, it focuses on Body, and there sees something that corresponds to the Idea it has understood or perceived through Sense.

But ’tis to be remembred, that I said, I easily conceive Imagination May be so performed, supposing Body to Exist. And because no so convenient manner of Explaining it offers it self, from thence I probably guess, that Body does Exist. But this I only say probably, for tho I should accurately search into all the Arguments[87] drawn from the distinct Idea of Body, which I find in my Imagination, yet I find none of them, from whence I may necessarily conclude, that Body does Exist.

But it should be remembered that I said I can easily imagine that Body May be understood as existing. And because there isn't a suitable way to explain it, I probably guess that Body does Exist. But I only say this probably because, although I should thoroughly examine all the arguments[87] derived from the distinct Idea of Body that I find in my Imagination, I still don’t find any of them that lead me to necessarily conclude that Body does Exist.

But I have been accustomed to Imagine many other things besides that Corporeal Nature which is the Object of pure Mathematicks; such as are, Colours, Sounds, Tasts, Pain, &c. but none of these so distinctly. And because I perceive these better by Sense, from Which by the Help of the Memory they come to the Imagination, that I may with the Greater advantage treat of them, I ought at the same time to Consider Sence, and to try whether from what I perceive by that way of Thought, which I call Sense, I can deduce any certain Argument for the Existence of Corporeal Beings.

But I have gotten used to imagining many other things besides that physical nature which is the focus of pure mathematics; things like colors, sounds, tastes, pain, etc., but none of these are as distinct. And because I perceive these more clearly through my senses, which, with the help of memory, lead to my imagination, I can discuss them with greater advantage. I should consider my senses and try to see if I can draw any clear argument for the existence of physical beings based on what I perceive through this way of thinking, which I call sense.

And first I will here reflect with my self, what those things were, which being perceived by Sence I have heretofore thought True, and the Reasons why I so thought: I will then enquire into the Reasons for which I afterwards doubted those things. And last of all I will consider what I ought to think of those Things at Present.

And first, I will reflect on what things I have previously believed to be true based on my senses, as well as the reasons why I thought that way. Then, I will examine the reasons why I later started to doubt those beliefs. Finally, I will consider what I ought to think about those things right now.

The Reasons why I Trusted my Senses.

First therefore I have always thought[88] that I have had an Head, Hands, Feet, and other Members, of which This Body (which I have look’d upon as a Part of Me, or Perhaps as my Whole self) Consists; And I have also thought that this Body of Mine is Conversant or engaged among many Other Bodies, by which it is Liable to be affected with what is advantagious or hurtful; What was Advantagious I judged by a certain sense of Pleasure, what was Hurtful by a sense of Pain. Furthermore, besides Pleasure and Pain, I perceived in my self Hunger, Thirst, and other such like Appetites, as also certain Corporeal Propensions to Mirth, Sadness, Anger, and other like Passions.

First of all, I have always believed[88] that I have a Head, Hands, Feet, and other Parts that make up This Body (which I consider a Part of Me, or maybe my Whole self); I have also thought that this Body of Mine interacts with many Other Bodies, which makes it likely to be affected by what is beneficial or harmful; I determined what was Beneficial through a certain sense of Pleasure, and what was Harmful through a sense of Pain. Additionally, beyond Pleasure and Pain, I noticed within myself Hunger, Thirst, and other similar Desires, as well as certain Physical Tendencies towards Joy, Sadness, Anger, and other similar Emotions.

As to What hapned to me from Bodies without, Besides the Extension, Figure, and Motion of those Bodies, I also perceived in them Hardness, Heat, and other tactile Qualities, as also Light, Colours, Smells, Tasts, Sounds, &c. and by the Variation of these I distinguish’d the Heaven, Earth, and Seas, and all other Bodies from each other.

As for what happened to me from Bodies without, besides the Extension, Figure, and Motion of those Bodies, I also noticed Hardness, Heat, and other tactile Qualities, as well as Light, Colors, Smells, Tastes, Sounds, etc., and by the Variation of these, I distinguished the Heaven, Earth, and Seas, and all other Bodies from one another.

Neither was it wholly without Reason (upon the account of these Ideas of[89] Qualities, which offer’d themselves to my Thoughts, and which alone I properly and Immediately perceived) that I thought my self to Perceive some Things Different from my Thought, viz. The Bodies or Objects from whence these Ideas might Proceed; for I often found these Ideas come upon me without my Consent or Will; so that I can neither perceive an Object (tho I had a mind to it) unless it were before the Organs of my Sense; Neither can I Hinder my self from perceiving it, when it is Present.

It wasn't entirely without reason (because of these ideas of[89] qualities, which came to my mind and which I properly and directly perceived) that I thought I could sense some things differently from my thoughts, like the bodies or objects from which these ideas might come; I often found these ideas appearing in my mind without my consent or will; so I can’t perceive an object (even if I want to) unless it’s in front of my senses; nor can I stop myself from perceiving it when it’s present.

And seeing that those Ideas which I take in by sense are much more Lively, Apparent and in their kind more distinct, than any of those which I knowingly and Willingly frame by Meditation, or stir up in my Memory; it seems to me that they cannot proceed from my self. There remains therefore no other way for them to come upon me, but from some other Things Without Me. Of Which Things seeing I have no other Knowledge but from these Ideas, I cannot Think but that these Ideas are like the Things.

And since the ideas I get through my senses are much more vivid, clear, and distinct than the ones I consciously create through thought or recall from my memory, it seems to me that they can’t come from myself. Therefore, the only way for them to occur to me is from things outside of me. Since I have no knowledge of these things except through these ideas, I can only think that these ideas resemble those things.

Moreover, Because I remember that I first made use of my senses before my Reason;[90] and because I did perceive that those Ideas which I my self did frame were not so Manifest as those which I received by my senses, but very often made up of their parts, I was easily perswaded to think that I had no Idea in my Understanding, which I had not First in my sense.

Also, because I remember that I first relied on my senses before my reason; and because I noticed that the ideas I created myself weren't as clear as the ones I got through my senses, but were often just made up of their components, I was easily convinced that I had no idea in my understanding that I hadn’t first experienced through my senses.

Neither was it without Reason that I Judged, That Body (which by a peculiar right I call my Own) to be more nighly appertaining to Me then any other Body. For from It, as from other Bodies, I can never be seperated, I was sensible of all Appetites and Affections in It and for It, and lastly I perceived pleasure and Pain in its Parts, and not in any other Without it. But why from the sense of Pain a certain Grief, and from the sense of pleasure a certain Joy of the Mind should arise, or Why that Gnawing of the stomach, Which I call Hunger, should put me in mind of Eating, or the driness of my Throat of Drinking, I can give no other Reason but that I am taught so by Nature. For to my thinking there is no Affinity or Likeness between that Gnawing of the Stomach, and the desire of Eating, or between the sense of[91] Pain, and the sorrowful thought from thence arising. But in this as in all other judgments that I made of sensible objects, I seem’d to be taught by Nature, for I first perswaded my self that things were so or so, before ever I enquired into a Reason that may prove it.

It wasn't without reason that I thought of this body (which I uniquely consider to be my own) as being more closely related to me than any other body. I can never be separated from it, just like other bodies, and I'm aware of all the cravings and feelings within it and for it. Ultimately, I experience pleasure and pain in its parts, and not in anything else outside of it. But I can't explain why the feeling of pain brings about a certain sadness, or why the sensation of pleasure brings a specific joy to the mind, or why the gnawing in my stomach, which I call hunger, reminds me of eating, or why the dryness in my throat reminds me of drinking. The only reason I can give is that I'm taught this by nature. To me, there's no connection between that gnawing in my stomach and the desire to eat, or between the feeling of pain and the sorrowful thoughts that arise from it. However, in this, as in all other judgments I made about sensory objects, I feel that nature has taught me, since I first convinced myself that things were this way before I ever looked for a reason to prove it.

The Reasons why I doubted my senses.
Medit. I.

But afterwards I discover’d many experiments, wherein my senses so grosly deceived me, that I would never trust them again; for Towers which seem’d Round a far off, nigh at hand appear’d square, and large Statues on their tops seem’d small to those that stood on the ground; and in numberless other things, I perceived the judgements of my outward senses were deceived: and not of my outward only, but of my inward senses also; for what is more intimate or inward than Pain? And yet I have heard from those, whose Arm or Leg was cut off, that they have felt pain in that part which they wanted, and therefore I am not absolutely certain that any part of me is affected with pain, tho I feel pain therein. To these I have lately added two very general Reasons of doubt;[92] The first was, that while I was awake, I could not believe my self to perceive any thing, which I could not think my self sometimes to perceive, tho I were a sleep; And seeing I cannot believe, that what I seem to perceive in my sleep proceeds from outward Objects, what greater Reason have I to think so of what I perceive whilst I am awake? The other Cause of Doubt was, that seeing I know not the Author of my Being (or at least I then supposed my self not to know him) what reason is there but that I may be so ordered by Nature as to be deceived even in those things which appear’d to me most true. And as to the Reasons, which induced me to give credit to sensible Things, ’twas easie to return an answer thereto, for finding by experience, that I was impelled by Nature to many Things, which Reason disswaded me from, I thought I should not far trust what I was taught by Nature. And tho the perceptions of my senses depended not on my Will, I thought I should not therefore conclude, that they proceeded from Objects different from my self; for perhaps there may be some other Faculty in me (tho as yet unknown[93] to me) which might frame those perceptions.

But later I found many experiences where my senses deceived me so badly that I could never trust them again; for towers that looked round from a distance appeared square up close, and large statues on top of them seemed small to those standing on the ground. In countless other cases, I realized that the judgments of my outward senses were deceived: not just those of my outward senses, but also my inward senses; because what is more intimate or inward than pain? Yet I have heard from people who had an arm or leg amputated that they felt pain in the parts they no longer had, so I'm not absolutely certain that any part of me is experiencing pain, even though I feel pain there. Recently, I added two very general Reasons for doubt; [92] The first was that while I was awake, I couldn't believe it was possible to perceive anything that I couldn’t sometimes think I perceived, even if I were asleep; and since I can't believe that what I seem to perceive in my sleep comes from outward Objects, what reason do I have to think differently about what I perceive while I’m awake? The other reason for doubt was that since I don’t know the Author of my Being (or at least I thought I didn’t know him), why shouldn’t I be arranged by Nature to be deceived even in those things that seem most true? As for the Reasons that made me trust sensible things, it was easy to respond to them, since I found through experience that I was driven by Nature to do many things that Reason advised against, so I thought I shouldn't trust too much what Nature taught me. And although the perceptions of my senses didn’t depend on my Will, I thought that didn’t necessarily mean they came from Objects different from myself; since there might be some other Faculty in me (though still unknown to me) that could create those perceptions.

How far the senses are now to be trusted.

But now that I begin better to know my self and the Author of my Original, I do not think, that all things, which I seem to have from my senses are rashly to be admitted, neither are all things so had, to be doubted. And first because I know that whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive, may be so made by God as I perceive them; the Power of understanding clearly and distinctly one Thing without the other is sufficient to make Me certain that One Thing is different from the Other; because it may at least be placed apart by God, and that it may be esteem’d different, it matters not by what Power it may be so sever’d. And therefore from the knowledge I have, that I my self exist, and because at the same time I understand that nothing else appertains to my Nature or Essence, but that I am a thinking Being, I rightly conclude, that my Essence consists in this alone, that I am a thinking Thing. And tho perhaps (or, as I shall shew presently, ’tis certain) I have a Body which is very nighly conjoyned to me, yet because[94] on this side I have a clear and distinct Idea of my self, as I am only a thinking Thing, not extended; and on the other side because I have a distinct Idea of my Body, as it is onely an extended thing, not thinking, ’tis from hence certain, that I am really distinct from my Body, and that I can exist without it.

But now that I’m starting to understand myself and the Creator of my Original, I don’t believe that everything I perceive through my senses should be accepted blindly, nor should everything that seems to be had be doubted. First, because I know that whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive may be made by God as I perceive it; my ability to understand clearly and distinctly one thing without the other is enough to make me certain that one thing is different from another; because they may at least be separated by God, and that they can be considered different, regardless of what Power caused that separation. Therefore, from what I know about my own existence, and because I also understand that nothing else is part of my Nature or Essence except that I am a thinking Being, I correctly conclude that my Essence consists solely of being a thinking Thing. And although perhaps (or, as I will show shortly, it’s certain) I have a Body that is very closely joined to me, still because[94] on one side I have a clear and distinct Idea of myself as just a thinking Thing, not extended; and on the other side because I have a distinct Idea of my Body, as it is solely an extended thing, not thinking, it is certain from this that I am really distinct from my Body, and that I can exist without it.

Moreover I find in my self some Faculties endow’d with certain peculiar waies of thinking, such as the Faculty of Imagination, the Faculty of Perception or sense; without which I can conceive my whole self clearly and distinctly, but (changing the phrase) I cannot conceive those Faculties without conceiving My self, that is, an understanding substance in which they are; for none of them in their formal Conception includes understanding; from whence I perceive they are as different from me, as the modus or manner of a Thing is different from the Thing it self.

Moreover, I find within myself some faculties endowed with certain unique ways of thinking, such as the faculty of imagination and the faculty of perception or sense; without which I can clearly and distinctly conceive my whole self, but (to put it differently) I cannot conceive those faculties without conceiving myself, that is, an understanding substance in which they exist; for none of them, in their formal conception, includes understanding; from which I realize they are as different from me as the mode or manner of a thing is different from the thing itself.

I acknowledge also, that I have several other Faculties, such as changing of place, putting on various shapes, &c. Which can no more be understood without a substance in which they are, then the foremention’d Faculties, and consequently[95] they can no more be understood to Exist without that substance: But yet ’tis Manifest, that this sort of Faculties, to the End they may exist, ought to be in a Corporeal, Extended, and not in an Understanding substance, because Extension, and not Intellection or Understanding is included in the Clear and Distinct conception of them.

I also recognize that I have several other faculties, such as the ability to change location, assume different shapes, etc. These faculties cannot be understood without a substance in which they exist, just like the aforementioned faculties; therefore, they cannot be understood to exist without that substance. However, it is clear that these kinds of faculties, in order to exist, must be in a corporeal, extended form and not in an understanding substance, because extension, rather than intellection or understanding, is included in the clear and distinct conception of them.

But there is also in me a certain Passive Faculty of sense, or of Receiving and Knowing the Ideas of sensible Things; of which Faculty I can make no use, unless there were in my self, or in something else, a certain Active Faculty of Producing and Effecting those Ideas. But this cannot be in my self, for it Pre-supposes no Understanding, and those Ideas are Produced in me, tho I help not, and often against my Will. There remains therefore no Place for this Active Faculty, but that it should be in some substance different from me. In which because all the Reallity, which is contain’d Objectively in the Ideas Produced by that Faculty, ought to be contain’d Formally or Eminently (as I have Formerly taken notice) this substance must be either a Body (in which what is in the[96] Ideas Objectively is contain’d Formally) or it Must Be God, or some Creature more excellent then a Body (In which what is in the Ideas Objectively is contain’d Eminently). But seeing that God is not a Deceivour, ’tis altogether Manifest, that he does not Place these Ideas in me either Immediately from himself, or Mediately from any other Creature, wherein their Objective Reallity is not * contain’d Formally, but only Eminently. And seeing God has given me no Faculty to discern Whether these Ideas proceed from Corporeal or Incorporeal Beings, but rather a strong Inclination to believe that they are sent from Corporeal Beings, there is no Reason Why God should not be counted a Deceiver, if these Ideas came from any Where, but from Corporeal Things. Therefore we must conclude that there are Corporeal Beings. Which perhaps are not all the same as I comprehend them by my sense (for Perception by sense is in many Things very Obscure and Confused) but those things at least, which I clearly and distinctly Understand, that is to say, all those things which are comprehended under the Object of Pure Mathematicks; those things I say at least are True.

But I also have a certain Passive Faculty of sense, or the ability of Receiving and Knowing the Ideas of sensible Things; I can’t use this Faculty unless there’s an Active Faculty in me or something else that Produces and Effects those Ideas. However, this can’t be in me because it assumes no Understanding, and those Ideas are created in me, even though I don’t assist and often against my Will. So, there’s no place for this Active Faculty except that it must be in some substance different from me. Since all the Reality contained Objectively in the Ideas produced by that Faculty must be contained Formally or Eminently (as I’ve noted before), this substance has to be either a Body (in which what’s in the [96]Ideas Objectively is contained Formally) or it must be God, or some Creature more excellent than a Body (in which what’s in the Ideas Objectively is contained Eminently). But since God is not a Deceiver, it’s clear that he does not place these Ideas in me either Immediately from himself or Mediately from any other Creature, where their Objective Reality is not Formally contained, but only Eminently. And given that God hasn’t given me any Faculty to discern whether these Ideas come from Corporeal or Incorporeal Beings, but rather a strong Inclination to believe that they come from Corporeal Beings, there’s no reason why God shouldn’t be seen as a Deceiver if these Ideas came from anywhere but Corporeal Things. Therefore, we must conclude that there are Corporeal Beings. These may not all be the same as I perceive them through my sense (because sense perception can be very Obscure and Confused in many things), but at the very least, those things that I clearly and distinctly understand, meaning everything that falls under the Object of Pure Mathematics; these things, I say, are at least True.

[97]

[97]

As to What Remains, They are either some Particulars, as that the Sun is of such a Bigness or Shape, &c. or they are Things less Clearly Understood, as Light, Sound, Pain, &c. And tho these and such like Things may be very Doubtful and Uncertain, yet because God is not a Deceiver, and because that (Therefore) none of my Opinions can be false unless God has Given me some Faculty or other to Correct my Error, hence ’tis that I am incouraged with the Hopes of attaining Truth even in these very Things.

Regarding what remains, they are either specific details, like the size or shape of the sun, etc., or they are concepts less clearly understood, like light, sound, pain, etc. And although these and similar things may be quite doubtful and uncertain, I am encouraged by the belief that God is not a deceiver, and that none of my opinions can be false unless God has given me some ability to correct my mistakes. Therefore, I have hope of achieving truth even in these areas.

And certainly it cannot be doubted but whatever I am taught by Nature has something therein of Truth. By Nature in General I understand either God himself, or the Coordination of Creatures Made by God. By my Own Nature in Particular I understand the Complexion or Association of all those things which are given me by God.

And it's definitely not in doubt that whatever I learn from Nature has some element of Truth in it. By Nature, I mean either God himself, or the Coordination of creatures created by God. By my Own Nature, I mean the specific Complexion or Association of all the things that God has given me.

Now there is nothing that this my Nature teaches me more expresly then that I have a Body, Which is not Well when I feel Pain, that this Body wants Meat or Drink When I am Hungry or Dry, &c. And therefore I ought not to Doubt but that these things are True. And by this sense of Pain, Hunger, Thirst, &c. My Nature tells[98] me that I am not in my Body, as a Mariner is in his Ship, but that I am most nighly conjoyn’d thereto, and as it were Blended therewith; so that I with It make up one thing; For Otherwise, when the Body were hurt, I, who am only a Thinking Thing, should not therefore feel Pain, but should only perceive the Hurt with the Eye of my Understanding (as a Mariner perceives by his sight whatever is broken in his Ship) and when the Body wants either Meat or Drink, I should only Understand this want, but should not have the Confused sense of Hunger or Thirst; I call them Confused, for certainly the Sense of Thirst, Hunger, Pain, &c. are only Confused Modes or Manners of Thought arising from the Union and (as it were) mixture of the Mind and Body.

Now there’s nothing that this my Nature teaches me more clearly than that I have a Body, which is not well when I feel pain, that this Body needs food or drink when I’m hungry or thirsty, &c. Therefore, I shouldn’t doubt that these things are true. And through this sense of pain, hunger, thirst, &c., my Nature tells[98] me that I am not in my Body like a mariner is in his ship, but that I am closely connected to it, almost blended with it; so that I and it make up one thing. Otherwise, when the Body gets hurt, I, who am just a thinking being, wouldn’t feel pain, but would only perceive the injury with the eye of my understanding (like a mariner sees whatever is broken in his ship). And when the Body needs either food or drink, I would only understand that need, but wouldn’t have the confused sense of hunger or thirst; I call them confused because the senses of thirst, hunger, pain, &c. are just confused modes or ways of thought that come from the union and, so to speak, mixing of the mind and body.

I am taught also by Nature, that there are many other Bodies Without and About my Body, some whereof are to be desired, others are to be Avoided. And because that I Perceive very Different Colours, Sounds, Smells, Tasts, Heat, Hardness, and the Like, from thence I Rightly conclude that there are Correspondent Differences in Bodies, from which these different perceptions[99] of sense proceed, tho perhaps not Alike. And because that some of these perceptions are Pleasant, others Unpleasant, ’tis evidently certain, that my Body, or rather my Whole self (as I am compounded of a Mind and Body) am liable to be Affected by these Bodies which encompass me about.

I also learn from Nature that there are many other Bodies Without and About my Body, some of which are to be desired, while others should be Avoided. And since I notice very different Colours, Sounds, Smells, Tastes, Heat, Hardness, and similar sensations, I rightly conclude that there are Correspondent Differences in Bodies, from which these different perceptions[99] of sense arise, though they may not be Alike. And because some of these perceptions are Pleasant while others are Unpleasant, it is clearly certain that my Body, or rather my Whole self (as I consist of a Mind and Body) can be Affected by these Bodies that surround me.

There are many Other Things Also which Nature seems to teach Me, but Really I am not taught by It, but have gotten them by an ill use of Passing my Judgement Inconsiderately, and from hence it is that these things happen often to be false; as that all space is Empty, in which I find nothing that works upon my Senses; That in a hot Body there is something like the Idea of Heat which is in me; That in a White or Green Body there is the same Whiteness or Greenness which I perceive; And the same Taste in a bitter or sweet Thing, &c. That Stars, Castles, and Other Remote Bodies are of the same Bigness and Shape, as they are Represented to my senses: and such like. But that I may not admit of any Thing in this very matter, which I cannot Distinctly perceive, it behoves me here to determine more Accurately What I mean when I say, That I am taught a Thing by Nature.

There are many other things too that Nature seems to teach me, but really I’m not actually taught by it; I’ve gotten these ideas through an improper use of passing my judgment thoughtlessly. That's why these things often turn out to be false; like saying all space is empty when I find nothing that affects my senses; that in a hot body, there’s something similar to the idea of heat in me; that in a white or green body, there’s the same whiteness or greenness that I perceive; and the same taste in something bitter or sweet, etc. That stars, castles, and other remote bodies are the same size and shape as they are represented to my senses; and so on. However, to avoid accepting anything in this regard that I cannot clearly perceive, I need to clarify more accurately what I mean when I say, that I am taught something by Nature.

[100]

[100]

Here I take Nature more strictly, then for the Complication of all those Things which are Given me by God; For in this Complication there are many things contain’d which relate to the Mind alone, as, That I perceive What is done cannot be not Done, and all Other things which are known by the Light of Nature, but of these I speak not at present. There are also many Other Things which belong only to the Body, as, That it tends Downwards and such like, of these also I treat not at Present. But I speak of those Things only which God hath bestowed upon me as I am Compounded of a Mind and Body together, and not differently Consider’d. ’Tis Nature therefore thus taken that teaches me to avoid troublesome Objects, and seek after pleasing Ones; but it appears not that this Nature teaches us to conclude any thing of these Perceptions of our senses, before that we make by our Understanding a diligent examination of outward Objects; for to Enquire into the Truth of Things belongs not to the Whole Compositum of a Man as he Consists of Mind and Body, but to the Mind alone.

Here I take Nature more strictly as the Complication of all those things that are given to me by God; because in this Complication, there are many aspects that pertain to the Mind alone, such as the understanding that what is done cannot be undone, and all other things that are known through the Light of Nature, but I won't discuss those right now. There are also many other things that belong only to the Body, such as the fact that it tends Downwards and similar aspects, which I also won't address at the moment. Instead, I will focus on the things that God has granted me as I am Compounded of both Mind and Body together, rather than considering them separately. It is this understanding of Nature that teaches me to avoid troublesome Objects and seek after pleasing Ones; however, it does not seem that this Nature guides us to make any conclusions about these perceptions of our senses before we conduct a careful examination of outward Objects through our Understanding; for investigating the Truth of things does not belong to the Whole Compositum of a man as he consists of Mind and Body, but rather to the Mind alone.

So that tho a star affect my eye no more[101] then a small spark of Fire, yet there is in my Eye no Real or Positive Inclination to believe One no bigger then the Other, but thus I have been used to Judge from my Childhood without any Reason: and tho coming nigh the Fire I feel Heat, and Coming too nigh I feel Pain, yet there is no Reason to perswade me, That in the Fire there is any thing like either that Heat or that Pain, but only that there is something therein, Whatever it be, that excites in us those sensations of Heat or Pain: and so tho in some space there may be nothing that Works on my senses, it does not from thence follow, that there is no Body there; for I see that in these and many other things I am used to overturn the Order of Nature, because I use these perceptions of sense (which properly are given me by Nature to make known to the mind what is advantagious or hurtful to the Compositum, whereof the mind is part, and so far only they are Clear and Distinct enough) as certain Rules immediately to discover the Essence of External Bodies, of Which they make known nothing but very Obscurely and Confusedly.

Though a star affects my eye no more[101] than a small spark of fire, I have no Real or Positive Inclination to believe that one is any bigger than the other. Yet I have judged this way since childhood without any reason. Even though I feel heat when I get close to the fire, and pain when I'm too near, there’s no reason to convince me that the fire has anything like that heat or pain. There’s just something in it—whatever it is—that triggers those sensations of heat or pain in us. Similarly, even if there might be nothing in some space that affects my senses, it doesn’t mean there’s no Body there. I realize that in these things and many others, I have a tendency to challenge the natural order, because I take these perceptions of senses (which nature gives me to indicate what is advantageous or hurtful to the Compositum of which the mind is a part, and in that sense, they are Clear and Distinct enough) as certain Rules that can directly reveal the Essence of External Bodies, of which they reveal nothing but in a very Obscure and Confused manner.

[102]

[102]

Medit. 4.

I have * formerly shewn how my Judgement happens to be false notwithstanding Gods Goodness. But now there arises a new Difficulty concerning those very things which Nature tells me I am to prosecute or avoid, concerning my Internal senses, Wherein I find many Errors, as when a Man being deceived by the Pleasant Taste of some sort of Meat, devours therein some hidden Poyson. But in this very Instance it cannot be said, that the Man is impelled by Nature to desire the Poyson, for of that he is wholly Ignorant; but he is said to Desire the Meat only as being of a grateful Taste; and from hence nothing can be concluded but, That Mans-Nature is not All-knowing; which is no Wonder seeing Man is a Finite Being, and therefore nothing but Finite Perfections belong to him.

I have * previously shown how my Judgment can be wrong despite God's Goodness. But now, a new Difficulty arises regarding the very things that Nature tells me to pursue or avoid, about my Internal senses. I find many Errors, like when a person, misled by the nice taste of a certain food, unknowingly eats something poisonous. In this situation, it can't be said that the person is driven by Nature to want the Poison, because they are completely unaware of it; rather, they desire the Food simply because it tastes good. From this, we can only conclude that Human Nature is not All-knowing; which is not surprising considering that humans are Finite Beings, and therefore only Finite Perfections belong to them.

But We often err even in those things to Which we are Impelled by Nature, as when sick men desire that Meat or Drink, which will certainly prove Hurtful to them. To this it may perhaps be reply’d, That they Err in this because their Nature is Corrupt. But this Answers not the Difficulty,[103] For a sick man is no less Gods Creature then a Man in Health, and therefore ’tis as Absurd to Imagine a Deceitful Nature imposed by God on the One as on the Other; And as a Clock that is made up of Wheels and Weights does no less strictly observe the Laws of its Nature, when it is ill contrived, and tells the hours falsly, as when it answers the Desire of the Artificer in all performances; so if I consider the body of a Man as a meer Machine or Movement, made up and compounded of Bones, Nerves, Muscles, Veins, Blood, and Skin; so that, tho there were no mind in It, yet It would perform all those Motions which now are in it (those only excepted which Proceed from the Will, and consequently from the Mind) I do easily acknowledge, that it would be as natural for him (if for example sake he were sick of a Dropsie) to suffer that Driness of his Throat which uses to bring into his mind the sense of Thirst, & that thereby his Nerves and other Parts would be so disposed as to take Drink, by Which his disease would be encreased; As (supposing him to be troubled with no such Distemper) by the like Driness of Throat he would be disposed[104] to Drink, when ’tis Requisite. And tho, if I respect the Intended use of a Clock I may say that it Errs from its Nature, when it tells the Hours wrong, and so considering the Movement of a Mans Body as contrived for such Motions as are used to be performed thereby, I may think That also to Err from its Nature, if its Throat is Dry, when it has no want of Drink for its Preservation. Yet I Plainly discover, that this last Acceptation of Nature differs much from that whereof we have been speaking all this While, for this is only a Denomination extrinsick to the Things whereof ’tis spoken, and depending on my Thought, while it Compares a sick man, and a disorderly Clock with the Idea of an healthy man and a Rectified Clock. But by Nature in its former Acceptation I Understand something that is Really in the Things themselves, which therefore has something of Truth in it.

But we often make mistakes even in those things we are driven to do by nature, like when sick people crave food or drink that will definitely harm them. One might argue that they mistake this because their nature is corrupted. However, this doesn’t resolve the issue,[103] because a sick person is just as much God's creation as a healthy person is, so it’s equally absurd to think of a deceptive nature given by God to one and not the other. Just as a clock made of gears and weights still follows its natural laws, even when it’s poorly designed and tells time incorrectly, rather than reflecting the intentions of its maker, if I consider the human body simply as a machine or system made up of bones, nerves, muscles, veins, blood, and skin; even if it had no mind, it would still carry out all the motions it normally does (except those initiated by the will and, consequently, the mind). I can easily agree that it would be just as natural for someone (if, for example, they were suffering from dropsy) to experience a dry throat that triggers feelings of thirst, and that this would lead their nerves and other parts to want drink, which would worsen their condition; as it would for someone without such an ailment to want to drink when their dry throat indicates it’s necessary. Although, if I consider a clock’s intended purpose, I can say that it fails in its nature when it tells the hours incorrectly, likewise, considering a person’s body as designed for certain motions, it seems wrong for their throat to be dry when there’s no need for drink to maintain health. Yet I clearly see that this last interpretation of nature is quite different from what we’ve been discussing all along, as this refers only to an external designation of the things being described, depending on my thought, as it compares a sick person and a mismanaged clock with the idea of a healthy person and a corrected clock. But by nature in the earlier context, I mean something that is truly within the things themselves, which hence holds some truth in it.

But tho Respecting only a Body sick of a Dropsie it be an Extrinsick Denomination to say, that its Nature is Corrupt, because it has a Dry Throat, and stands in no need of Drink; yet respecting the Whole Compound or Mind joyn’d to such a Body, ’tis[105] not a meer Denomination, but a real Error of Nature for it to thirst when drink is hurtful to it. It remains therefore here to be inquired, how the Goodness of God suffers Nature so taken to be deceivable.

But regarding only a sick body with dropsy, it's an external label to say that its nature is corrupted just because it has a dry throat and doesn't need drink; however, concerning the whole being or mind connected to such a body, it’s[105] not just a mere label, but a real error of nature for it to thirst when drinking is harmful to it. Therefore, we need to inquire why the goodness of God allows nature, as it is, to be deceiving.

First therefore I understand that a chief difference between my Mind and Body consists in this, That my Body is of its Nature divisible, but my Mind indivisible; for while I consider my Mind or my self, as I am only a thinking Thing, I can distinguish no parts in Me, but I perceive my self to be but one entire Thing; and tho the whole Mind seems to be united to the whole Body, yet a Foot, an Arm, or any other part of the Body being cut off, I do not therefore conceive any part of my Mind taken away; Neither can its Faculties of desiring, perceiving, understanding, &c. be called its Parts, for ’tis one and the same, mind, that desires, that perceives, that understands; Contrarily, I cannot think of any Corporeal or extended Being, which I cannot easily divide into Parts by my thought, and by this I understand it to be divisible. And this alone (if I had known it from no other Argument) is sufficient to inform[106] me, that my mind is really distinct from my Body.

First, I understand that a main difference between my Mind and Body is this: my Body is by its Nature divisible, but my Mind is indivisible. When I think of my Mind or myself as just a thinking Thing, I can't identify any parts within me; I see myself as just one whole Thing. Even though the whole Mind seems united with the whole Body, if a Foot, an Arm, or any other part of the Body is cut off, I don’t think of any part of my Mind being lost. Its Faculties of desiring, perceiving, understanding, etc., cannot be counted as Parts, because it’s the one and the same Mind that desires, that perceives, that understands. On the other hand, I can easily think of any Corporeal or extended Being as something that I can divide into Parts with my thoughts, and this shows me it is divisible. If I had known this from no other argument, it would still be enough to tell me that my Mind is really distinct from my Body.

Nextly I find, that my mind is not immediately affected by all parts of my body, but only by the Brain, and perhaps only by one small part of it, That, to wit, wherein the common sense is said to reside; Which part, as often as it is disposed in the same manner, will represent to the mind the same thing, tho at the same time the other parts of the body may be differently order’d. And this is proved by numberless Experiments, which need not here be related.

Next, I find that my mind is not directly affected by all parts of my body, but only by the brain, and maybe just a small part of it—specifically, the area where common sense is thought to be. Whenever that part is functioning in the same way, it will show the mind the same thing, even if the other parts of the body are arranged differently. This is supported by countless experiments, which don’t need to be explained here.

Moreover I discover that the nature of my body is such, that no part of it can be moved by an other remote part thereof, but it may also be moved in the same manner by some of the interjacent parts, tho the more remote part lay still and acted not; As for example in the Rope,

Moreover, I've found that the nature of my body is such that no part of it can be moved by another remote part, but it can also be moved in the same way by some of the intermediate parts, even if the more remote part stays still and doesn't act. For example, in the rope,

A⸺B⸺C⸺D

A—B—C—D

if its end D. were drawn, the end A. would be moved no otherwise, than if one of the intermediate parts B. or C. were drawn, and the end D. rest quiet. So when I feel pain in my Foot, the consideration of Physicks instructs me, that[107] this is performed by the help of Nerves dispersed through the Foot, which from thence being continued like Ropes to the very Brain, whilst they are drawn in the Foot, they also draw the inward parts of the Brain to which they reach, and therein excite a certain motion, which is ordain’d by Nature to affect the mind with a sense of Pain, as being in the Foot. But because these Nerves must pass through the Shin, the Thighs, the Loins, the Back, the Neck, before they can reach the Brain from the Foot, it may so happen, that tho that part of them, which is in the Foot were not touch’d, but only some of their intermediate parts, yet the same motion, would be caused in the Brain, as when the Foot it self is ill affected, from whence ’twill necessarily follow, that the mind should perceive the same Pain. And thus may we think of any other Sense.

If the end D. were pulled, the end A. would move in the same way as if one of the parts B. or C. were pulled, while the end D. stays still. So, when I feel pain in my foot, the study of physiology tells me that[107] this happens through nerves spread throughout the foot, which are connected like ropes all the way to the brain. When they are pulled in the foot, they also pull on the inner parts of the brain they connect to, causing a certain motion that is designed by nature to make the mind feel a sense of pain, as if it were in the foot. However, since these nerves have to go through the shin, thighs, loins, back, and neck before reaching the brain from the foot, it could happen that even if the part in the foot is not touched, but only some of their intermediate parts, the same motion could occur in the brain as when the foot itself is hurt. Therefore, it follows that the mind would still perceive the same pain. And we can think about any other sense in this way.

I understand lastly, that seeing each single motion perform’d in that part of the Brain, which immediately affects the mind, excites therein only one sort of sense, nothing could be contrived more conveniently in this case, than that, of all those Senses which it can cause, it[108] should cause that which cheifly, and most frequently conduces to the conservation of an healthful Man; And experience witnesses, that to this very end all our senses are given us by Nature; and therefore nothing can be found therein, which does not abundantly testifie the Power and Goodness of God. Thus for Example, when the Nerves of the Feet are violently and more than ordinarily moved, that motion of them being propagated through the Medulla Spinalis of the Back to the inward parts of the Brain, there it signifies to the mind, that something or other is to be felt, and what is this but Pain, as if it were in the Foot, by which the Mind is excited to use its indeavours for removing the Cause, as being hurtful to the Foot. But the Nature of Man might have been so order’d by God, that That same motion in the Brain should represent to the mind any other thing, viz. either it self as ’tis in the Brain, or it self as it is in the Foot, or in any of the other forementioned intermediate parts, or lastly any other thing whatsoever; but none of these would have so much conduced to the Conservation of the Body.[109] In the like manner when we want drink, from thence arises a certain dryness in the Throat, which moves the Nerves thereof, and by their means the inward parts of the Brain, and this motion affects the mind with the sense of thirst; because that in this case nothing is more requisite for us to know, then that we want drink for the Preservation of our Health. So of the Rest.

I finally understand that observing every single movement happening in that area of the Brain, which directly impacts the mind, only stimulates one type of sense. Nothing could be more appropriate in this situation than for all the Senses it can trigger to be the one that primarily and most frequently supports the well-being of a healthy person. Experience shows that all our senses are provided to us by Nature for this very purpose; therefore, nothing in this setup can be found that doesn’t strongly demonstrate the Power and Goodness of God. For example, when the Nerves in the Feet are intensely and unusually stimulated, that movement is conveyed through the Medulla Spinalis in the Back to the deeper areas of the Brain, signaling to the mind that something needs to be felt, and what is this but Pain, as if it’s in the Foot, which prompts the Mind to take action to remove the source of pain, as it’s harmful to the Foot. However, the Nature of Man could have been arranged by God so that this same motion in the Brain could indicate anything else, like itself as it is in the Brain, or as it is in the Foot, or in any of the other mentioned intermediate parts, or even anything else at all; but none of these would have contributed as effectively to the Preservation of the Body.[109] Similarly, when we feel thirsty, it creates a certain dryness in the Throat, which activates the Nerves there, and through them, the deeper areas of the Brain, and this action informs the mind with the sense of thirst; because, in this situation, nothing is more important for us to recognize than that we need to drink for the Preservation of our Health. The same applies to the rest.

From all which ’tis manifest, that (notwithstanding the infinite Goodness of God) ’tis impossible but the Nature of Man as he consists of a mind and body should be deceivable. For if any cause should excite (not in the Foot but) in the Brain it self, or in any other part through which the Nerves are continued from the Foot to the Brain, that self same motion, which uses to arise from the Foot being troubled, the Pain would be felt as in the Foot, and the sense would be naturally deceived; for ’tis consonant to Reason (seeing that That same motion of the Brain alwayes represents to the mind that same sense, and it oftner proceeds from a cause hurtful to the Foot, than from any other) I say ’tis reasonable, that it should make[110] known to the mind the Pain of the Foot, rather than of any other part. And so if a dryness of Throat arises (not as ’tis used from the necessity of drink for the conservation of the Body, but) from an unusual Cause, as it happens in a Dropsie, ’tis far better that it should then deceive us; then that it should alwayes deceive us when the Body is in Health, and so of the Rest.

From all of this, it’s clear that (despite God's infinite goodness) it’s impossible for the nature of man, consisting of a mind and body, to not be deceivable. If any cause were to stimulate (not in the foot but) in the brain itself, or in any other part where the nerves connect the foot to the brain, that same motion which usually arises from the foot being affected would make the pain feel as if it’s in the foot, and our senses would be naturally deceived. It follows reason (given that the same motion of the brain always portrays that same sensation to the mind, and it often arises from a cause harmful to the foot, more than from any other source) that it’s reasonable for the mind to perceive the pain of the foot rather than any other part. Similarly, if there’s a dryness in the throat that arises (not as it typically does from the need for drink to sustain the body, but) from an unusual cause, such as in a dropsy, it’s far better for it to deceive us at that moment than to constantly deceive us when the body is healthy, and this applies to other instances as well.

And this consideration helps me very much, not only to understand the Errors to which my Nature is subject, but also to correct and avoid them. For seeing I know that all my Senses do oftener inform me falsly than truely in those things which conduce to the Bodies advantage; and seeing I can use (almost alwayes) more of them than one to Examine the same thing, as also I can use memory, which joyns present and past things together, and my understanding also, which hath already discovered to me all the causes of my Errors, I ought no longer to fear, that what my Senses daily represent to me should be false. But especially those extravagant Doubts of my First Meditation are to be turn’d off as ridiculous; and[111] perticularly the chief of them, viz. That * of not distinguishing Sleep from Waking, for now I plainly discover a great difference, between them, for my Dreams are never conjoyned by my memory with the other actions of my life, as whatever happens to me awake is; and certainly if (while I were awake) any person should suddenly appear to me, and presently disappear (as in Dreams) so that I could not tell from whence he came or where he went, I should rather esteem it a Spectre or Apparition feign’d in my Brain, then a true Man; but when such things occur, as I distinctly know from whence, where, and when they come, and I conjoyn the perception of them by my memory with the other Accidents of my life, I am certain they are represented to me waking and not asleep, neither ought I in the least to doubt of their Truth, if after I have called up all my senses, memory, and understanding to their Examination I find nothing in any of them, that clashes with other truths; For God not being a Deceiver, it follows, that In such things I am not deceived. But because the urgency of Action in the common occurrences of Affairs[112] will not alwayes allow time for such an accurate examination, I must confess that Mans life is subject to many Errors about perticulars, so that the infirmity of our Nature must be acknowledged by Us.

And this thought helps me a lot, not only to understand the errors my nature is prone to, but also to correct and avoid them. Knowing that my senses often mislead me more than they clarify things that benefit my body, I can use (almost always) more than one sense to examine the same thing, along with memory, which connects my present and past experiences, and my understanding, which has already shown me the causes of my errors. I shouldn’t fear that what my senses present to me each day might be false. Those extravagant doubts I had in my First Meditation are to be dismissed as ridiculous; especially the main one, which was that * of not distinguishing sleep from waking. Now I clearly see a significant difference between them, since my dreams are never connected by my memory to the other events in my life, whereas everything that happens when I’m awake is. Certainly, if someone were to suddenly appear to me while I was awake and then instantly disappear (like in my dreams), leaving me unable to tell where they came from or where they went, I would consider it a specter or a phantom created in my mind rather than a real person. But when such moments occur, I clearly know where, when, and how they happen, and I connect these experiences through my memory with other incidents in my life. I am certain they are happening when I’m waking and not asleep, and I shouldn’t doubt their truth. After calling upon all my senses, memory, and understanding for examination, if I find nothing in any of them that contradicts other truths, then I can assert, because God is not a deceiver, that I am not deceived in these matters. However, because the urgency of action in everyday affairs doesn’t always allow time for such a thorough examination, I must admit that human life is prone to many errors in specific cases, and so we must acknowledge the weakness of our nature.

FINIS.

THE END.


[113]

[113]

ADVERTISEMENT
ABOUT THE
OBJECTIONS.

Among seven Parcels of Objections made by Divers Learned Persons against these Meditations, I have made choise of the Third in the Latine Copy, as being Penn’d by Thomas Hobbs of Malmesbury, a Man famously known to the World abroad, but especially to his own the English Nation; and therefore ’tis likely that what comes from Him may be more acceptable to his Countrymen, then what proceeds from a Stranger; and as the strength of a Fortification is never better known then by a Forcible Resistance, so fares[114] it with these Meditations which stand unshaken by the Violent Opposition of so Potent an Enemy. And yet it must be Confess’d that the Force of these Objections and Cogency of the Arguments cannot be well apprehended by those who are not versed in other Pieces of Mr. Hobbs’s Philosophy, especially His Book De Corpore and De Homine, The former whereof I am sure is Translated into English, and therefore not Impertinently refer’d to Here in a Discourse to English Readers. And this is the Reason that makes the Great Des-Cartes pass over many of these Objections so slightly, Who certainly would have Undermined the whole Fabrick of the Hobbian Philosophy had he but known upon What Foundations it was Built.

Among seven objections raised by various learned individuals against these meditations, I've chosen the third one from the Latin copy, authored by Thomas Hobbs of Malmesbury, a man well-known both internationally and particularly among his fellow Englishmen. Therefore, it's likely that his thoughts will resonate more with his countrymen than those from an outsider. Just as the true strength of a fortification is best demonstrated through vigorous resistance, so too do these Meditations remain steadfast despite the intense opposition from such a powerful adversary. However, it must be acknowledged that the impact of these objections and the force of the arguments may not be fully understood by those unfamiliar with other works by Mr. Hobbs, especially his books De Corpore and De Homine, the former of which I know has been translated into English, making it relevant to mention here for English readers. This explains why the great Descartes tends to overlook many of these objections so casually; he would certainly have dismantled the entire structure of Hobbian Philosophy had he understood the foundations upon which it was built.


[115]

[115]

OBJECTIONS
Against the Previous
Meditations,
BY THE ICONIC
THOMAS HOBBS
Of Malmesbury,
WITH
DESCARTES’S
ANSWERS
.


OBJECT. I.
Against the First Meditation: Of things Doubtful.

’Tis evident enough from What has been said in this Meditation, that there is no sign by Which we may Distinguish our Dreams from True[116] Sense and Waking, and therefore that those Phantasmes which we have waking and from our Senses are not accidents inhering in Outward Objects, neither do they Prove that such outward Objects do Exist; and therefore if we trust our Senses without any other Ground, we may well doubt whether any Thing Be or Not. We therefore acknowledge the Truth of this Meditation. But Because Plato and other Antient Philosophers argued for the same incertainty in sensible Things, and because ’tis commonly Observed by the Vulgar that ’tis hard to Distinguish Sleep from Waking, I would not have the most excellent Author of such new Thoughts put forth so antique Notions.

It's clear from what has been said in this meditation that there’s no sign by which we can distinguish our dreams from true[116] sense and waking. Therefore, the phantasms we experience while awake and from our senses are not accidents that exist in external objects, nor do they prove that such external objects exist. If we rely on our senses without any other basis, we can rightly question whether anything is or is not. We thus acknowledge the truth of this meditation. However, because Plato and other ancient philosophers argued for the same uncertainty in sensible things, and because it’s often noted by the general public that it’s difficult to distinguish sleep from waking, I would prefer that the brilliant author of such new ideas not promote such outdated notions.

ANSWER.

Those Reasons of Doubt which by this Philosopher are admitted as true, were proposed by Me only as Probable, and I made use of them not that I may vend them as new, but partly that I may prepare the Minds of my Readers for the Consideration of Intellectual Things, wherein they seem’d to me very necessary; And partly that thereby I may shew[117] how firm those Truths are, which hereafter I lay down, seeing they cannot be Weaken’d by these Metaphysical Doubts: So, that I never designed to gain any Honor by repeating them, but I think I could no more omit them, then a Writer in Physick can pass over the Description of a Disease, Whose Cure he intends to Teach.

The reasons for doubt that this philosopher accepts as true were suggested by me only as probable, and I used them not to present them as new, but partly to prepare my readers for thinking about intellectual matters, which I found very necessary; and partly to demonstrate how solid the truths I will present later are, as they cannot be weakened by these metaphysical doubts. Thus, I never intended to gain any recognition by restating them, but I felt I could no more leave them out than a medical writer can skip over describing a disease whose treatment they plan to teach.


OBJECT. II.
Against the Second Meditation: Of the Nature of Mans Mind.

I am a Thinking Thing. ’Tis True; for because I think or have a Phantasme (whether I am awake or asleep) it follows that I am Thinking, for I Think and I am Thinking signifie the same Thing. Because I Think, it follows That I am, for whatever Thinks cannot be Nothing. But when he Adds, That is, a Mind, a Soul, an Understanding, Reason, I question his Argumentation; for it does not seem a Right Consequence to say, I am a Thinking Thing, therefore I am a Thought, neither, I am an Understanding Thing, therefore I am the Understanding. For in the same manner[118] I may Conclude, I am a Walking Thing, therefore I am the Walking it self.

I am a Thinking Thing. It’s true; because I think or have a thought (whether I am awake or asleep), it follows that I am Thinking, since I Think and I am Thinking mean the same thing. Because I Think, it follows that I am, because whatever thinks cannot be nothing. But when he adds, that is, a mind, a soul, an understanding, reason, I question his argument; because it doesn’t seem like a valid conclusion to say, I am a Thinking Thing, therefore I am a Thought, nor, I am an Understanding Thing, therefore I am the Understanding. Similarly, I might conclude, I am a Walking Thing, therefore I am the Walking itself.

Wherefore D.Cartes Concludes that an Understanding Thing and Intellection (which is the Act of an Understanding Thing) are the same; or at least that an Understanding Thing and the Intellect (which is the Power of an Understanding Thing) are the same; And yet all Philosophers distinguish the subject from its Faculties and Acts, that is, from its Properties and Essence, for the Thing it self is one thing, and its Essence is an other. It may be therefore that a Thinking Thing is the Subject of a Mind, Reason, or Understanding, and therefor it may be a Corporeal Thing, the Contrary Whereof is here Assumed and not Proved; and yet this Inference is the Foundation of that Conclusion which D.Cartes would Establish.

Therefore, D.Cartes concludes that an Understanding Thing and Intellection (which is the Act of an Understanding Thing) are the same; or at least that an Understanding Thing and the Intellect (which is the Power of an Understanding Thing) are the same. Yet, all philosophers differentiate the subject from its Faculties and Acts, meaning from its Properties and Essence, because the Thing itself is one thing, and its Essence is another. It may be that a Thinking Thing is the Subject of a Mind, Reason, or Understanding, and therefore, it may be a Corporeal Thing, the opposite of which is assumed here and not proven; and yet this Inference forms the Foundation of the conclusion that D.Cartes seeks to establish.

* Places noted with this Asterick are the Passages of the foregoing Meditations here Objected against.

In the same Meditation, on, * I know that I am, I ask, What I am Whom I Thus Know, Certainly the Knowledge of Me precisely so taken depends not on those Things of whose Existence I am yet Ignorant.

In the same Meditation, on, * I know that I am, I ask, What am I Whom I Thus Know, Certainly the Knowledge of Me precisely so taken depends not on those Things of whose Existence I am yet Ignorant.

’Tis Certain the Knowledge of this[119] Proposition I am, depends on this, I think as he hath rightly inform’d us; but from whence have we the knowledge of this Proposition, I think? certainly from hence only, that we cannot conceive any Act without its subject, as dancing without a Dancer, knowledge, without a Knower, thought without a thinker.

It’s clear that the understanding of this[119] proposition I am relies on this, I think, as he has rightly informed us; but where do we get the understanding of this proposition, I think? Certainly, it’s only from the fact that we can’t conceive any Action without its subject, like dancing without a Dancer, knowledge without a Knower, and thought without a thinker.

And from hence it seems to follow, that a thinking Thing is a Corporeal Thing; for the Subjects of all Acts are understood only in a Corporeal way, or after the manner of matter, as he himself shews hereafter by the example of a piece of Wax, which changing its colour, consistence, shape, and other Acts is yet known to continue the same thing, that is, the same matter subject to so many changes. But I cannot conclude from another thought that I now think; for tho a Man may think that he hath thought (which consists only in memory) yet ’tis altogether impossible for him to think that he now thinks, or to know, that he knows, for the question may be put infinitely, how do you know that you know, that you know, that you know? &c.

And from this, it seems to follow that a thinking thing is a physical thing; because the subjects of all actions are understood only in a physical way, or as related to matter, as he demonstrates later with the example of a piece of wax, which, changing its color, consistency, shape, and other actions is still recognized as the same thing, that is, the same matter subject to so many changes. But I cannot conclude from another thought that I now think; because although a person may think that he has thought (which is just a matter of memory), it’s completely impossible for him to think that he now thinks, or to know that he knows, because the question can be posed infinitely, how do you know that you know, that you know, that you know? &c.

Wherefore seeing the Knowledge of this Proposition I am, depends on the[120] knowledge of this I think, and the knowledge of this is from hence only, that we cannot separate thought from thinking matter, it seems rather to follow, that a thinking thing is material, than that ’tis immaterial.

Wherefore, since the understanding of this proposition I am relies on the understanding of I think, and this understanding comes only from the fact that we cannot separate thought from thinking matter, it appears more likely that a thinking thing is material, rather than immaterial.

ANSWER.

When I said, That is a Mind, a Soul, an Understanding, Reason, &c. I did not mean by these names the Faculties only, but the things indow’d with those Faculties; and so ’tis alwayes understood by the two first names (mind and soul) and very often so understood by the two last Names (understanding and Reason) and this I have explain’d so often, and in so many places of these Meditations, that there is not the least occasion of questioning my meaning.

When I said, That is a Mind, a Soul, an Understanding, Reason, etc., I didn't just mean the Faculties themselves, but the things endowed with those Faculties. It's always understood that the first two names (mind and soul) mean this, and it's very often the case with the last two names (understanding and Reason) as well. I've explained this so many times and in so many parts of these Meditations that there's really no reason to doubt my meaning.

Neither is there any parity between Walking and Thought, for walking is used only for the Act it self, but thought is sometimes used for the Act, sometimes for the Faculty, and sometimes for the thing it self, wherein the Faculty resides.

Neither is there any equality between Walking and Thought, because walking refers only to the Action itself, while thought can refer to the Action, the Ability, or the thing itself where the Ability resides.

Neither do I say, that the understanding[121] thing and intellection are the same, or that the understanding thing and the intellect are the same, if the intellect be taken for the Faculty, but only when ’tis taken for the thing it self that understands. Yet I willingly confess, that I have (as much as in me lay) made use of abstracted words to signifie that thing or substance, which I would have devested of all those things that belong not to it. Whereas contrarily this Philosopher uses the most concrete Words to signifie this thinking thing, such as subject, matter, Body, &c. that he may not suffer it to be separated from Body.

I’m not saying that the understanding thing and intellection are the same, or that the understanding thing and the intellect are the same if intellect refers to the Faculty, but only when it refers to the thing itself that understands. However, I admit that I have (as much as I could) used abstracted words to represent that thing or substance, which I wanted to strip of all those characteristics that don't belong to it. In contrast, this philosopher uses the most concrete words to signify this thinking thing, such as subject, matter, Body, etc., so he doesn't allow it to be separated from Body.

Neither am I concern’d that His manner of joyning many things together may seem to some fitter for the discovery of Truth, than mine, wherein I separate as much as possibly each particular. But let us omit words and speak of things.

Neither am I worried that His way of bringing many things together might seem better for discovering Truth than mine, where I try to separate each specific thing as much as possible. But let's skip the words and focus on the things.

It may be (sayes he) that a Thinking thing is a corporeal thing, the contrary whereof is here assumed and not proved. But herein he is mistaken, for I never assumed the contrary, neither have I used it as a Foundation, for the rest of my Superstructure, but left it wholly undetermin’d till the sixth[122] Meditation, and in that ’tis proved.

It may be (he says) that a thinking thing is a physical thing, which is the opposite of what is being assumed here and not proven. But he is mistaken because I never assumed the opposite, nor have I used it as a foundation for the rest of my structure, but left it completely undetermined until the sixth[122] Meditation, and in that, it is proven.

Then he tells us rightly, that we cannot conceive any Act without its subject, as thought without a thinking thing, for what thinks cannot be nothing; but then he subjoyns without any Reason, and against the usual manner of speaking, and contrary to all Logick, that hence it seem to follow, that a thinking thing is a corporeal Being. Truly the subjects of all Acts are understood under the notion of substance, or if you please under the notion of matter (that is to say of metaphysical matter) but not therefore under the notion of Bodies.

Then he rightly tells us that we can't conceive any action without its subject, just like we can't have thought without a thinker, because what thinks can't be nothing. However, he goes on, without any reasoning and contrary to the usual way of speaking and against all logic, that this seems to imply that a thinking thing is a physical being. In truth, the subjects of all actions are understood in terms of substance, or if you prefer, in terms of matter (metaphysical matter, that is), but not in terms of bodies.

But Logicians and Commonly all Men are used to say, that there are some Spiritual, some Corporeal substances. And by the Instance of Wax I only proved that Colour, Consistence, Shape, &c. appertain not to the Ratio Formalis of the Wax; For in that Place I treated neither of the Ratio Formalis of the Mind, neither of Body.

But logicians and most people usually say that there are some spiritual and some corporeal substances. By using the example of wax, I only showed that color, consistency, shape, etc., do not belong to the ratio formalis of the wax. In that context, I didn't discuss the ratio formalis of the mind or the body.

Neither is it pertinent to the business, that the Philosopher asserts, That one Thought cannot be the subject of an other thought, for Who besides Himself ever Imagin’d This? But that I may explain the[123] matter in a few words, ’Tis certain that Thought cannot be without a Thinking Thing, neither any Act or any Accident without a substance wherein it resides. But seeing that we know not a substance immediately by it self, but by this alone, that ’tis the subject of several Acts, it is very consonant to the commands of Reason and Custome, that we should call by different names those substances, which we perceive are the subjects of very different Acts or Accidents, and that afterwards we should examine, whether those different names signifie different or one and the same thing. Now there are some Acts which we call corporeal, as magnitude, figure, motion, and what ever else cannot be thought on without local extension, and the substance wherein these reside we call Body; neither can it be imagin’d that ’tis one substance which is the subject of Figure, and another substance which is the subject of local motion, &c. Because all these Acts agree under one common notion of Extension. Besides there are other Acts, which we call cogitative or thinking, as understanding, will, imagination, sense, &c. All which agree under the common notion[124] of thought, perception, or Conscience; And the substance wherein they are, we say, is a thinking thing, or mind, or call it by whatever other name we please, so we do not confound it with corporeal substance, because cogitative Acts have no affinity with corporeal Acts, and thought, which is the common Ratio of those is wholly different from Extension, which is the common Ratio of These. But after we have formed two distinct conceptions of these two substances, from what is said in the sixth Meditation, ’tis easie to know, whether they be one and the same or different.

It's not relevant to the discussion that the Philosopher claims, One thought cannot be the subject of another thought, because who besides himself ever thought of this? To put it simply, it's clear that thought cannot exist without a thinking thing, and neither can any act or accident exist without a substance that contains it. However, since we don't know a substance by itself, but only by the fact that it is the subject of various acts, it makes sense according to reason and custom that we should use different names for those substances that we observe as the subjects of various acts or accidents. We should then examine whether those different names refer to different or one and the same thing. Some acts are what we call corporeal, like magnitude, figure, motion, and anything else that cannot be conceived without local extension. The substance that contains these is called body; it cannot be imagined that the subject of figure is one substance while the subject of local motion is another substance, because all these acts fall under the common concept of extension. Additionally, there are other acts we refer to as cogitative or thinking, such as understanding, willing, imagining, sensing, etc. All these fall under the common concept of thought, perception, or consciousness; and the substance that contains them is referred to as a thinking thing, or mind, or whatever other name we prefer, as long as we don't confuse it with corporeal substance, because cogitative acts have no connection to corporeal acts, and thought, which is the common ratio of those is completely different from extension, which is the common ratio of these. However, after forming two distinct conceptions of these two substances, from what was said in the sixth meditation, it's easy to determine whether they are one and the same or different.


OBJECT. III.

* Which of them is it, that is distinct from my thought? which of them is it that can be separated from me?

* Which one of them is different from my thoughts? Which one can be separated from me?

Some perhaps will answer this Question thus, I my self, who think am distinct from my thought, and my thought is different from me (tho’ not seperated) as dancing is distinguished from the Dancer (as before is noted.) But if Des-Cartes[125] will prove, that he who understands is the same with his understanding, we shall fall into the Scholastick expressions, the understanding understands, the sight sees, the Will wills, and then by an exact analogy, the Walking (or at least the Faculty of walking) shall walk. All which are obscure, improper, and unworthy that perspicuity which is usual with the noble Des-Cartes.

Some may answer this question by saying that I, myself, who think I am separate from my thoughts, see my thoughts as different from me (though not completely separate) just as dancing is distinct from the dancer (as previously noted). But if Descartes[125] argues that the one who understands is the same as his understanding, we will end up in confusing terminology like "the understanding understands," "the sight sees," "the will wills," and by a similar logic, the walking (or at least the ability to walk) will walk. All of these are unclear, inappropriate, and unworthy of the clarity that is typical of the esteemed Descartes.

ANSWER.

I do not deny, that I who think am distinct from my thought, as a thing is distinguish’d from its modus or manner; But when I ask, which of them is it that is distinct from my thought? this I understand of those various modes of thought there mention’d, and not of substance; and when I subjoyn, which of them is it that can be separated from me? I only signifie that all those modes or manners of thinking reside in me, neither do I herein perceive what occasion of doubt or obscurity can be imagined.

I don't deny that I, who think I'm separate from my thoughts, just like a thing is distinct from its way of being. But when I ask, "which of these is separate from my thoughts?" I'm referring to those different ways of thinking mentioned earlier, not to substance. And when I add, "which of these can be separated from me?" I simply mean that all those ways of thinking exist within me, and I don't see what doubt or confusion could possibly arise from this.


[126]

[126]

OBJECT. IV.

* It remains therefore for me to Confess that I cannot Imagine what this Wax is, but that I conceive in my mind What it is.

* So I have to admit that I can't figure out what this wax is, but I can picture in my mind what it is.

There is a great Difference between Imagination (that is) having an Idea of a Thing, and the Conception of the Mind (that is) a Concluding from Reasoning that a thing Is or Exists. But Des-Cartes has not Declared to us in what they Differ. Besides, the Ancient Aristotelians have clearly deliver’d as a Doctrine, that substance is not perceived by sense but is Collected by Ratiocination.

There is a significant difference between Imagination (which means having an Idea of something) and the Conception of the Mind (which means concluding from Reasoning that something Is or Exists). However, Des-Cartes hasn't clarified how they differ. Additionally, the ancient Aristotelians have clearly stated in their teachings that substance is not perceived by senses but is instead understood through Reasoning.

But what shall we now say, if perhaps Ratiocination be nothing Else but a Copulation or Concatenation of Names or Appellations by this Word Is? From whence ’twill follow that we Collect by Reasoning nothing of or concerning the Nature of Things, but of the names of Things, that is to say, we only discover whether or no we joyn the Names of Things according to the Agreements which at Pleasure we have made concerning their significations; if it be so (as so it may be) Ratiocination will[127] depend on Words, Words on Imagination, and perhaps Imagination as also Sense on the Motion of Corporeal Parts; and so the Mind shall be nothing but Motions in some Parts of an Organical Body.

But what should we say now, if maybe Ratiocination is nothing more than a Copulation or Concatenation of Names or Labels with this word Is? From this, it follows that we Collect through Reasoning nothing about or regarding the Nature of Things, but about the names of Things. In other words, we only find out whether we join the Names of Things based on the Agreements we've made about their meanings; if this is the case (and it might be), Ratiocination will[127] depend on Words, Words on Imagination, and perhaps Imagination as well as Sense on the Motion of Corporeal Parts; and thus the Mind will be nothing but Motions in certain Parts of an Organical Body.

ANSWER.

I have here Explain’d the Difference between Imagination, and the Meer Conception of the Mind, by reckoning up in my Example of the Wax, what it is therein which we Imagine, and what it is that we conceive in our Mind only: but besides this, I have explained in an other Place How we understand one way, and Imagine an other way One and the same Thing, suppose a Pentagone or Five sided Figure.

I have explained the difference between Imagination and just the Conception of the Mind by using the example of wax to show what we Imagine and what we only conceive in our Mind. Additionally, I've clarified in another section how we understand one way and Imagine another way the same thing, such as a pentagon or five-sided figure.

There is in Ratiocination a Conjunction not of Words, but of Things signified by Words; And I much admire that the Contrary could Possibly enter any Mans Thoughts; For Who ever doubted but that a Frenchman and a German may argue about the same Things, tho they use very Differing Words? and does not the Philosopher Disprove himself when he speaks[128] of the Agreements which at pleasure we have made about the significations of Words? for if he grants that something is Signified by Words, Why will he not admit that our Ratiocinations are rather about this something, then about Words only? and by the same Right that he concludes the Mind to be a Motion, he may Conclude Also that the Earth is Heaven, or What else he Pleases.

In Ratiocination, there's a Connection not of Words, but of Things signified by Words; and I really find it hard to believe that the Opposite could possibly enter anyone's mind; for who ever doubted that a Frenchman and a German can argue about the same Things, even if they use very Different Words? And doesn't the Philosopher contradict himself when he talks[128] about the Agreements we've made about the meanings of Words? Because if he agrees that something is Signified by Words, why won't he also accept that our reasoning is more about this something than just Words? And using the same logic that leads him to conclude the Mind is a Motion, he could just as easily say that the Earth is Heaven, or anything else he likes.


OBJECT. V.
Against the Third Meditation of God.

* Some of These (viz. Humane Thoughts) are as it were the Images of Things, and to these alone belongs properly the Name of an Idea, as when I Think on a Man, a Chimera, Heaven, an Angel, or God.

* Some of these (specifically Compassionate Thoughts) are essentially the representations of things, and only these truly deserve the title of an Idea, like when I think about a man, a chimera, heaven, an angel, or God.

When I Think on a Man I perceive an Idea made up of Figure and Colour, whereof I may doubt whether it be the Likeness of a Man or not; and so when I think on Heaven. But when I think on a Chimera, I perceive an Image or Idea, of which I may doubt whether it be the Likeness of any Animal not only at present Existing,[129] but possible to Exist, or that ever will Exist hereafter or not.

When I think about a Man, I see an Idea made up of Shape and Color, and I might doubt whether it actually looks like a Man or not; the same goes for when I think about Heaven. However, when I think about a Chimera, I see an Image or Idea, and I might doubt whether it resembles any Animal that currently exists,[129] could possibly exist, or ever will exist in the future or not.

But thinking on an Angel, there is offer’d to my Mind sometimes the Image of a Flame, sometimes the Image of a Pretty Little Boy with Wings, which I am certain has no Likeness to an Angel, and therefore that it is not the Idea of an Angel; But beleiving that there are some Creatures, Who do (as it were) wait upon God, and are Invisible, and Immaterial, upon the Thing Believed or supposed we Impose the Name of Angel; Whereas the Idea, under which I Imagine an Angel, is compounded of the Ideas of sensible Things.

But when I think of an Angel, sometimes the Image that comes to my mind is that of a Flame, and other times it’s the Image of a Pretty Little Boy with Wings. I’m sure that doesn’t resemble an Angel, which is why it’s not really the Idea of an Angel; however, I believe that there are some beings that, in a way, serve God and are invisible and immaterial. We give the Name of Angel to the Things Believed or supposed. The Idea I have of an Angel combines the ideas of tangible things.

In the like manner at the Venerable Name of God, we have no Image or Idea of God, and therefore we are forbidden to Worship God under any Image, least we should seem to Conceive Him that is inconceivable.

In the same way, in the Venerable Name of God, we have no Image or Idea of God, and therefore we are forbidden to Worship God in any form of Image, lest we should seem to Conceive Him who is beyond conception.

Whereby it appears that we have no Idea of God; but like one born blind, who being brought to the Fire, and perceiving himself to be Warmed, knows there is something by which he is warmed and Hearing it called Fire, he Concludes that Fire Exists, but yet knows not of what shape or Colour[130] the Fire is, neither has he any Image or Idea thereof in his Mind.

It seems that we have no concept of God; it's like someone born blind who, when brought to the Fire, feels the warmth and realizes there's something that makes him feel warm. Hearing it called Fire, he concludes that Fire exists, but he doesn't know what shape or color the fire has[130] nor does he have any image or idea of it in his mind.

So Man knowing that there must be some Cause of his Imaginations or Ideas, as also an other cause before That, and so onwards, he is brought at last to an End, or to a supposal of some Eternal Cause, Which because it never began to Be cannot have any other Cause before it, and thence he Concludes that ’tis necessary that some Eternal Thing Exist: and yet he has no Idea which He can call the Idea of this Eternal Thing, but he names this Thing, which he believes and acknowledges by the Name God.

So, knowing that there must be some cause for his imaginations or ideas, and that there’s another cause before that, and so on, man eventually reaches an end or a belief in some eternal cause. Since this cause never began to exist, it can’t have any cause before it. Thus, he concludes that it’s necessary for some eternal thing to exist. Yet, he has no specific idea that he can refer to as the idea of this eternal thing; instead, he names this thing, which he believes in and recognizes, as God.

But now Des-Cartes proceeds from this Position, That we have an Idea of God in our Mind, to prove this Theoreme, That God (that if an Almighty, Wise, Creatour of the World) Exists, whereas he ought to have explain’d this Idea of God better, and he should have thence deduced not only his Existence, but also the Creation of the World.

But now Des-Cartes moves from this position, that we have an idea of God in our minds, to prove the theorem, that God (an all-powerful, wise creator of the world) exists. However, he should have explained this idea of God better, and he should have deduced not only his existence, but also the creation of the world from it.

ANSWER.

Here the Philosopher will have the Word Idea be only Understood for the[131] Images of Material Things represented in a Corporeal Phantasie, by which Position he may Easily Prove, that there can be no Proper Idea of an Angel or God. Whereas as I declare every Where, but especially in this Place, that I take the Name Idea for whatever is immediately perceived by the Mind, so that when I Will, or Fear, because at the same time I perceive that I Will or Fear, this very Will or Fear are reckon’d by me among the number of Ideas; And I have purposely made use of that Word, because It was usual with the Antient Philosophers to signifie the Manner of Perceptions in the Divine Mind, altho neither we nor they acknowledge a Phantasie in God: and besides I had no fitter Word to express it by.

Here the philosopher will only understand the word Idea as the Images of Material things represented in a Corporeal imagination, which allows him to easily prove that there can be no true Idea of an Angel or God. I want to clarify everywhere, but especially here, that I take the name Idea to mean whatever is immediately perceived by the Mind. So when I Will or Fear, since I simultaneously perceive that I Will or Fear, this very Will or Fear counts as part of my Ideas. I intentionally chose that word because it was common among ancient philosophers to signify the nature of Perceptions in the Divine Mind, even though neither we nor they recognize an imagination in God; besides, I had no better word to express it.

And I think I have sufficiently explain’d the Idea of God for those that will attend my meaning, but I can never do it fully enough for those that will Understand my Words otherwise then I intend them.

And I think I’ve explained the Idea of God well enough for those who will grasp my meaning, but I can never explain it fully enough for those who interpret my Words differently than I intend.

Lastly, what is here added concerning the Creation of the World is wholly beside the Question in hand.

Lastly, what’s added here about the Creation of the World has nothing to do with the issue at hand.


[132]

[132]

OBJECT. VI.

* But there are Other (Thoughts) That have Superadded Forms to them, as when I Will, when I Fear, when I Affirm, when I Deny; I know I have alwayes (whenever I think) some certain thing as the Subject or Object of my Thought, but in this last sort of Thoughts there is something More which I think upon then Barely the Likeness of the Thing; and of these Thoughts some are called Wills and Affections, and others of them Judgements.

* But there are other (ideas) that have additional forms to them, like when I want, when I fear, when I affirm, or when I deny. I know that whenever I think, there's always something specific as the subject or object of my thought. However, in this last category of thoughts, there's something more that I consider besides just the mere likeness of the thing. Some of these thoughts are called wills and emotions, while others are called judgments.

When any one Fears or Wills, he has certainly the Image of the Thing Fear’d, or Action Will’d, but what more a Willing or Fearing Man has in his Thoughts is not explain’d; and tho Fear be a Thought, yet I see not how it can be any other then the Thought of the Thing Fear’d; For what is the Fear of a Lion rushing on me, but the Idea of a Lion Rushing on me, and the Effect (which that Idea produces in the Heart) whereby the Man Fearing is excited to that Animal Motion which is called Flight? but now this Motion of[133] Flying is not Thought, it remains therefore that in Fear there is no other Thought, but that which consists in the likeness of the thing. And the same may be said of Will.

When someone fears or wants something, they definitely have the image of the thing feared or the action desired, but what else a willing or fearing person has in their thoughts isn’t explained; and although fear is a thought, it’s not clear how it can be anything other than the thought of the thing feared; because what is the fear of a lion charging at me but the idea of a lion charging at me, and the effect (which that idea produces in the heart) that causes the person who fears to feel the instinct to run away? But now, this instinct to [133] run is not a thought, so it follows that in fear, there’s no other thought except that which is based on the likeness of the thing. The same can be said for will.

Moreover Affirmation and Negation are not without a voice and words, and hence ’tis that Brutes can neither affirme or deny not so much as in their Thought, and consequently neither can they judge. But yet the same thought may be in a beast as in a Man; for when we affirme that a Man runs, we have not a thought different from what a Dog has when he sees his Master running; Affirmation therefore or Negation superadds nothing to meer thoughts, unless perhaps it adds this thought, that the names of which an Affirmation consists are (to the Person affirming) the Names of the same thing; and this is not to comprehend in the thought more then the likeness of the thing, but it is only comprehending the same likeness twice.

Moreover, Affirmation and Negation aren't without a voice and words, which is why animals can neither affirm nor deny even in their thoughts, and therefore they can't judge either. However, the same thought can exist in an animal as it does in a human; when we affirm that a man is running, we're not thinking anything different from what a dog thinks when it sees its owner running. Affirmation or Negation doesn't add anything to mere thoughts, unless it adds the idea that the names in an Affirmation refer (to the person affirming) to the same thing; and this doesn't add to the thought anything more than the likeness of the thing, but rather it just involves recognizing the same likeness twice.

ANSWER.

’Tis self evident, That ’tis one thing to see a Lion and at the same time to fear him,[134] and an other thing only to see him. So ’tis one thing to see a Man Running, and an other thing to Affirme within my self (which may be done without a voice) That I see him.

It’s obvious that it's one thing to see a lion and at the same time to fear him,[134] and another thing only to see him. Similarly, it’s one thing to see a man running, and another thing to affirm to myself (which can be done silently) that I see him.

But in all this objection I find nothing that requires an Answer.

But in all these objections, I find nothing that demands a response.


OBJECT. VII.

* Now it remains for me to examine, how I have received this Idea of God, for I have neither received it by means of my senses, neither comes it to me without my forethought, as the Ideas of sensible things use to do, when those things work on the Organs of my sense, or at least seem so to work; Neither is this Idea framed by my self, for I can neither add to, nor detract from it. Wherefore I have only to conclude, that it is innate, even as the Idea of me my self is Natural to my self.

* Now I need to examine how I came to have this idea of God, because I didn’t get it through my senses, nor does it just come to me without any thought, like the ideas of things I can sense do, when those things affect my senses, or at least seem to do so. This idea isn’t something I created myself, since I can neither add to it nor take away from it. Therefore, I can only conclude that it is innate, just like the idea of myself is natural to me.

If there be no Idea of God, as it seems there is not (and here ’tis not proved that there is) this whole discourse falls to the ground. And as to the Idea of my self (if I respect the Body) it proceeds from Sight, but (if the Soul) there[135] is no Idea of a Soul, but we collect by Ratiocination, that there is some inward thing in a Mans Body, that imparts to it Animal Motion, by which it perceives and moves, and this (whatever it be) without any Idea we call a Soul.

If there’s no Idea of God, which seems to be the case (and it hasn’t been proven that there is), then this entire discussion falls apart. As for the Idea of myself (when I consider the Body), it comes from Sight, but (when it comes to the Soul) there[135] is no Idea of a Soul. Instead, we deduce by reasoning that there’s something within a person’s body that gives it Animal Motion, enabling it to perceive and move, and this (whatever it is) without any Idea, we call a Soul.

ANSWER.

If there be an Idea of God (as ’tis manifest that there is) this whole Objection falls to the ground; and then he subjoyns, That we have no Idea of the Soul, but collect it by Ratiocination, ’Tis the same as if he should say, that there is no Image thereof represented in the Phantasie, but yet, that there is such a Thing, as I call an Idea.

If there's an Idea of God (which it’s clear there is), this entire Objection is invalid; and then he adds, That we have no Idea of the Soul, but collect it by Ratiocination. It's like saying that there's no Image of it in the Phantasie, but still, there is something I refer to as an Idea.


OBJECT. VIII.

* An other Idea of the Sun as taken from the Arguments of Astronomers, that is consequentially collected by me from certain natural notions.

* Another idea of the Sun based on the arguments of astronomers, which I have gathered from some natural concepts.

At the same time we can certainly have but one Idea of the Sun, whether it be look’d at by our eyes, or collected by Ratiocination to be much bigger than it[136] seems; for this last is not an Idea of the Sun, but a proof by Arguments, that the Idea of the Sun would be much larger, if it were look’d at nigher. But at different or several times the Ideas of the Sun may be diverse, as if at one time we look at it with our bare eye, at an other time through a Teloscope; but Astronomical arguments do not make the Idea of the Sun greater or less, but they rather tell us that the sensible Idea thereof is false.

At the same time, we can definitely have only one Idea of the Sun, whether we see it with our eyes or reason that it’s much bigger than it appears; for this reasoning is not an Idea of the Sun, but proof by arguments that the Idea of the Sun would be much larger if we looked at it more closely. However, at different times, the Ideas of the Sun may vary, like when we look at it with our bare eyes at one moment and with a telescope at another. But astronomical arguments don’t make the Idea of the Sun greater or smaller; they simply tell us that the sensible Idea of it is false.[136]

ANSWER.

Here also (as before) what he says is not the Idea of the Sun, and yet is described, is that very thing which I call the Idea.

Here too (like before) what he says is not the Idea of the Sun, and yet is described, is that very thing which I call the Idea.


OBJECT. IX.

* For without doubt those Ideas which Represent substances are something more, or (as I may say) have more of objective Reality in them, then those that represent only accidents or modes; and again, that by which I understand a mighty God, Eternal, Infinite, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Creatour of all things besides himself, has[137] certainly in it more objective reality, then those by which Finite substances are exhibited.

* Without a doubt, the ideas that represent substances have more objective reality in them than those that only represent accidents or modes. Additionally, the concept of a powerful God—Eternal, Infinite, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Creator of everything besides Himself—certainly contains more objective reality than the ideas that represent finite substances.

I have before often noted that there can be no Idea of God or the Mind: I will now superadd, That neither can there be an Idea of Substance. For Substance (Which is only Matter Subject to Accidents and Changes) is Collected only by Reasoning, but it is not at all Conceived, neither does it represent to us any Idea. And if this be true, How can it be said, That those Ideas which represent to us Substances have in them something More, or More Objective Reality, then those which represent to us Accidents? Besides, Let Des-Cartes again Consider what he means by More Reality? Can Reality be increas’d or diminish’d? Or does he think that One Thing can be More A Thing then an other Thing? let him Consider how this can be Explain’d to our Understandings with that Perspicuity or Clearness which is requisite in all Demonstrations, and Which He Himself is used to present us with upon other Occasions.

I have often pointed out that there can't be an Idea of God or the Mind: I will now add that there can't be an Idea of Substance either. Because Substance (which is just Matter subjected to Accidents and Changes) is only understood through Reasoning, but it isn’t actually Conceived, nor does it represent to us any Idea. If this is true, how can it be said that the Ideas which represent to us Substances have something More, or More Objective Reality, than those which represent to us Accidents? Also, let Des-Cartes rethink what he means by More Realness. Can Reality be increased or decreased? Does he believe that one Thing can be More of a Thing than another Thing? He should consider how this can be explained to our understanding with the Clarity required in all Demonstrations, which he usually provides in other contexts.

[138]

[138]

ANSWER.

I have often noted before, That that very Thing which is evidenc’d by Reason, as also whatever else is perceived by any other Means, is Called by Me an Idea. And I have sufficiently explain’d How Reality may be Encreas’d or Diminish’d, in the same manner (to wit) as Substance is More a Thing, then A Mode; and if there be any such things as Real Qualities, or Incomplete Substances, these are More Things then Modes, and Less Things then Complete Substances: and Lastly if there be an Infinite Independent Substance this is More a Thing, then a Finite, Dependent Substance. And all this is self-evident.

I have often noted before that what is shown by reason, along with anything else understood through different means, is what I call an idea. I have clearly explained how reality can be increased or decreased, just like substance is more of a thing than a mode. If there are any real qualities or incomplete substances, these are more things than modes, but less things than complete substances. Lastly, if there is an infinite independent substance, it is more of a thing than a finite dependent substance. All of this is self-evident.


OBJECT. X.

* Wherefore There only Remains the Idea of God; Wherein I must consider whether there be not something Included, which cannot Possibly have its Original from me. By the Word, God, I mean a certain Infinite Substance, Independent, Omniscient, Almighty, by whom both I my self and every thing Else That Is (if any[139] thing do actually exist) was Created; All which attributes are of such an High Nature That the more attentively I consider them, the Less I Conceive my self alone possible to be the Author of these notions; from what therefore has been said I must Conclude there is a God.

* Therefore, what remains is the concept of God. I need to consider whether there is something included in this concept that cannot possibly come from me. By "God," I mean a certain Infinite Substance that is Independent, All-Knowing, and All-Powerful, by whom both I and everything else that exists (if anything actually does exist) was created. All of these attributes are of such a high nature that the more I think about them, the less I believe I could be the sole source of these ideas. From what has been said, I must conclude that there is a God.

Considering the Attributes of God, that from thence we may gather an Idea of God, and that we may enquire whether there be not something in that Idea which cannot Possibly Proceed from our selves, I discover (if I am not Deceived) that what we think off at the Venerable name of God proceeds neither from our selves, neither is it Necessary that they should have any other Original then from Outward Objects. For by the Name of God I understand a Substance, that is, I understand that God Exists (not by an Idea, but by Reasoning) Infinite (that is, I cannot conceive or Imagine Terms or Parts in him so Extream, but I can Imagine others Farther) from whence it follows, that not an Idea of Gods Infinity but of my Own bounds and Limits presents it self at the Word Infinite. Independent, That is, I do not conceive any Cause[140] from which God may proceed; from whence ’tis evident that I have no other Idea at the word Independent, but the memory of my own Ideas which at Different Times have Different Beginnings, and Consequently they must be Dependent.

Considering the Attributes of God, we can gather an Idea of God and explore whether there is something in that Idea that could not possibly come from ourselves. I realize (if I'm not mistaken) that what we think of when we hear the Venerable name of God does not come from us, nor is it necessary for it to have any other Origin than from Outward Objects. By the Name of God, I understand a Substance; I mean that God exists (not through an Idea, but through Reasoning) Endless (that is, I cannot conceive or imagine terms or parts in Him so extreme that I can’t imagine even more) which means that what comes to mind is not an Idea of God's Infinity but my own limits and boundaries when I think of the word Infinite. Self-sufficient, meaning I do not conceive any Cause[140] from which God might arise; therefore, it is clear that I have no other Idea of the word Independent than the memories of my own Ideas that at different times have Different Beginnings, and consequently, they must be Dependent.

Wherefore, to say that God is Independent, is only to say That God is in the Number of those things, the Original whereof I do not Imagine: and so to say that God is Infinite, is the same as if we say That He is in the Number of Those Things whose Bounds we do not Conceive: And thus any Idea of God is Exploded, for What Idea can we have without Beginning or Ending?

Therefore, to say that God is Independent is simply to acknowledge that God belongs to a category of things whose Original I cannot imagine: and so saying that God is Infinite means the same as saying that He belongs to a category of things whose Bounds we cannot conceive: thus, any Idea of God is dismissed, for what kind of Idea can we have that lacks Beginning or Ending?

Omniscient or Understanding all things, Here I desire to know, by what Idea, Des-Cartes understands Gods Understanding? Almighty, I desire also to know by What Idea Gods Power is understood? For Power is in Respect of Future Things, that is, Things not Existing. For my Part, I understand Power from the Image or Memory of past Actions, arguing with my self thus, He did so, therefore he was able (or had Power) to do so, therefore (continuing the same) he will again have Power to do so. But now[141] all these are Ideas that may arise from external Objects.

All-knowing or understanding everything, here I want to know, what idea does Des-Cartes have about God's understanding? All-powerful, I also want to know what idea describes God's power? Because power relates to future things, that is, things that don’t exist yet. For me, I understand power from the image or memory of past actions, reasoning with myself like this: He did that, so he was able (or had power) to do it, therefore (if the same continues) he will again have power to do it. But now [141] all these are ideas that may arise from external objects.

Creatour of all things, I can frame an Image of Creation from what I see every day, as a Man Born, or growing from a Punctum to that shape and size he now bears; an other Idea then this no man can have at the word Creatour; But the Possibility of Imagining a Creation is not sufficient to prove that the world was created. And therefore tho it were Demonstrated that some Infinite Independent Almighty Being did exist, yet it will not from thence follow that a Creatour exists; unless one can think this to be a right inference, we believe that there exists something that has created all other things, therefore the world was Created thereby.

Content Creator of everything, I can shape an Image of Creation from what I observe every day, like a man born or growing from a point to the shape and size he now has; no other Idea than this can exist with the term Creator; But the Possibility of Imagining a Creation is not enough to prove that the world was created. So even if it were Demonstrated that some Infinite Independent Almighty Being did exist, it wouldn't mean that a Creator exists; unless one can think of this as a valid conclusion, we believe that there's something that has created everything else, hence the world was Created by it.

Moreover when he says, that the Idea of God, and of our Soul is Innate or born in us, I would fain know, whether the Souls of those that sleep soundly do think unless they dream; If not, then at that time they have no Ideas, and consequently no Idea is Innate, for what is Innate to us is never Absent from us.

Moreover, when he says that the Idea of God and of our Soul is Innate or born within us, I would like to know whether the Souls of those who sleep soundly actually think unless they dream; If not, then during that time they have no Ideas, and therefore no Idea is Innate, because what is Innate to us is never Absent from us.

[142]

[142]

ANSWER.

None of Gods Attributes can proceed from outward objects as from a Pattern, because there is nothing found in God like what is found in External, that is, Corporeal things; Now ’tis manifest that whatever we think of in him differing or unlike what we find in them proceeds not from them, but from a cause of that very diversity in our Thought.

None of God's attributes can come from external objects as a pattern, because there's nothing in God that resembles what we find in external, which means physical things. It's clear that anything we think about Him that is different or unlike what we see in them doesn't come from them, but from a cause of that very diversity in our thoughts.

And here I desire to know, how this Philosopher deduces Gods Understanding from outward Things, and yet I can easily explain what Idea I have thereof, by saying, that by the Idea of Gods Understanding I conceive whatever is the Form of any Perception; For who is there that does not perceive that he understands something or other, and consequently he must thereby have an Idea of understanding, and by enlarging it Indefinitely he forms the Idea of Gods Understanding. And so of his other Attributes.

And here I want to understand how this philosopher derives God's understanding from external things, and I can easily explain what idea I have about it by saying that, through the idea of God's understanding, I imagine whatever represents the form of any perception. After all, who doesn't realize that they understand something or other? Therefore, they must have an idea of understanding, and by expanding it indefinitely, they create the idea of God's understanding. The same goes for His other attributes.

And seeing we have made use of that Idea of God which is in us to demonstrate his existence, and seeing there is contain’d[143] in this Idea such an Immense Power, that we conceive it a contradiction for God to Exist, and yet that any thing should Be besides Him, which was not Created by Him, it plainly follows that demonstrating His existence we demonstrate also that the whole world, or all things different from God, were Created by God.

And since we have used the Idea of God that exists within us to prove His existence, and since this Idea contains such an Immense Power that we find it contradictory for God to Exist while anything else could Be besides Him that wasn’t Created by Him, it clearly follows that by proving His existence, we also prove that the entire world, or everything different from God, was Created by Him.

Lastly when we assert, that some Ideas are Innate or natural to us, we do not mean that they are always present with us (for so no Idea would be Innate) but only that we have in our selves a Faculty of producing them.

Lastly, when we say that some Ideas are Innate or natural to us, we don't mean that they are always with us (because then no Idea would be Innate) but rather that we possess a capability to generate them within ourselves.


OBJECT. XI.

* The whole stress of which Argument lyes thus; because I know it impossible for me to be of the same nature I am, viz, having the Idea of a God in me, unless really there were a God, A God (I say) that very same God, whose Idea I have in my mind.

* The entire essence of this argument rests on the fact that I find it impossible to be of the same nature I am, that is having the idea of a God within me, unless there truly exists a God— that very God whose idea I hold in my mind.

Wherefore seeing ’tis not demonstrated that we have an Idea of God, and the Christian Religion commands us to believe[144] that God is Inconceivable, that is, as I suppose, that we cannot have an Idea of Him, it follows, that the Existence of God is not demonstrated, much less the Creation.

Since it’s not proven that we have an Idea of God, and the Christian Religion tells us to believe[144] that God is Inconceivable, meaning, as I understand it, that we cannot have an Idea of Him, it follows that the Existence of God is not proven, let alone the Creation.

ANSWER.

When God is said to be Inconceiveable ’tis understood of an Adequate full conception. But I am ’een tired with often repeating, how notwithstanding we may have an Idea of God. So that here is nothing brought that makes any thing against my demonstration.

When God is described as Inconceivable, it refers to a full and adequate understanding. But I’m really tired of repeating that, even though we might have an Idea of God, nothing has been presented that contradicts my argument.


OBJECT. XII.
Against the Fourth Meditation, Of Truth and Falshood.

* By Which I understand that Error (as it is Error) is not a Real Being, Dependent on God, but is only a Defect; and that therefore to make me Err there is not requisite a Faculty of Erring Given me by God.

* I understand that error, in its true sense, is not a real existence that depends on God, but rather just a flaw; therefore, it’s not necessary for God to give me a special ability to err.

’Tis Certain that Ignorance is only a Defect, and that there is no Occasion of any[145] Positive Faculty to make us Ignorant. But this position is not so clear in Relation to Error, for Stones and Inanimate Creatures cannot Err, for this Reason only, because they have not the Faculties of Reasoning or Imagination; from whence ’tis Natural for us to Conclude, That to Err there is requisite a Faculty of Judging, or at least of Imagining, both which Faculties are Positive, and given to all Creatures subject to Error, and to Them only.

It’s certain that Ignorance is just a Defect, and that there's no need for any Positive Faculty to make us Ignorant. But this idea isn't as clear when it comes to Error, since stones and inanimate creatures can't Err simply because they don't have the Faculties of Reasoning or Imagination. From this, it’s natural for us to conclude that in order to Err, a Faculty of Judging, or at least of Imagining, is necessary—both of which Faculties are Positive and are given to all Creatures that are capable of Error, and to them alone.

Moreover Des-Cartes says thus, I find (my Errors) to Depend on two concurring Causes, viz. on my Faculty of Knowing, and on my Faculty of Choosing, or Freedom of my Will. Which seems Contradictious to what he said before; And here also we may note, that Freedom of Will is assumed without any Proof contrary to the Opinion of the Calvinists.

Moreover, Des-Cartes says this: I find (my errors) to depend on two factors, namely my ability to know, and my ability to choose, or the freedom of my will. This seems contradictory to what he stated earlier; and here, we can also note that the freedom of will is assumed without any proof, which goes against the opinion of the Calvinists.

ANSWER.

Tho to make us Err there is requisite a Faculty of Reasoning (or rather of Judging, that is, of Affirming and Denying) because Error is the Defect thereof, yet it does not follow from thence that this Defect[146] is any thing Real, for neither is Blindness a Real Thing, tho stones cannot be said to be Blind, for this Reason only, That they are incapable of sight. And I much wonder that in all these Objections I have not found one Right Inference.

Though to make us Err there is a need for a Faculty of Reasoning (or rather of Judging, that is, of Affirming and Denying) because Error is the Defect of it, it doesn’t follow that this Defect [146] is anything Real, for neither is Blindness a Real Thing, even though stones cannot be said to be Blind, simply because they are incapable of sight. And I am puzzled that in all these Objections I haven’t found a single Right Inference.

I have not here assumed any thing concerning the Freedom of Mans Will, unless what all Men do Experience in themselves, and is most evident by the Light of Nature. Neither see I any Reason, Why he should say that this is Contradictious to any former Position.

I haven't taken a stance on the Freedom of Man's Will, except for what everyone experiences within themselves, which is clear through the Light of Nature. I also don't see why he would claim that this contradicts any previous statement.

Perhaps there may be Many, who respecting Gods predisposal of Things cannot Comprehend, How their Freedom of Will Consists there-with, but yet there is no Man who, respecting himself only, does not find by Experience, That ’tis one and the same Thing to be Willing, and to be Free. But ’tis no Place to Enquire what the Opinion of others may be in this Matter.

Perhaps there are many people who, considering the way God arranges things, can't understand how their freedom of will works alongside that. However, there is no person who, thinking only of themselves, doesn't find from experience that wanting something and being free are essentially the same thing. But this isn't the right place to question what others might think about this issue.


OBJECT. XIII.

* As for Example, When lately I set my self to examine Whether any[147] Thing Do Exist, and found, that from my setting my self to examine such a Thing, it evidently follows, That I my self Exist, I could not but Judge, what I so clearly understood, to be true, not that I was forced thereto by any outward Impulse, but because a strong Propension in my Will did follow this Great Light in my Understanding, so that I believed it so much the more Freely and Willingly, by how much the Less indifferent I was thereunto.

* For example, recently I tried to figure out if anything truly exists, and I discovered that by engaging in this examination, it clearly follows that I exist. I couldn't help but conclude that what I understood so clearly was true, not because of any external pressure, but because a strong inclination in my will followed this significant insight in my understanding, so I believed it even more freely and willingly, the less indifferent I was to it.

This expression, Great Light in the Understanding, is Metaphorical, and therefore not to be used in Argumentation; And every one, that Doubts not of his Opinion, Pretends such a Light, and has no less a Propension in his Will to Affirm what he doubts not, than He that really and truely knows a Thing. Wherefore this Light may be the cause of Defending and Holding an Opinion Obstinately, but never of knowing an Opinion Truly.

This expression, Great Light in the Understanding, is Metaphorical, and therefore should not be used in arguments. Everyone who is confident in their opinion claims to have such a Light, and has just as strong a Disposition in their Will to affirm what they are sure of, as someone who truly and genuinely knows something. Thus, this Light may lead to Defending and Holding an opinion Obstinately, but it can never lead to knowing an opinion Truly.

Moreover not only the Knowledge of Truth, but Belief or Giving Assent, are not the Acts of the Will; for Whatever is proved by strong Arguments, or Credibly told, we Believe whether we will or no.

Moreover, not only the Knowledge of Truth, but also Belief or Giving Assent, are not the Acts of the Will; because whatever is proved by strong Arguments, or Credibly stated, we Believe whether we want to or not.

[148]

[148]

’Tis true, To Affirm or Deny Propositions, to Defend or Oppose Propositions, are the Acts of the Will; but it does not from thence Follow that the Internal Assent depends on the Will. Wherefore the following Conclusion (so that in the abuse of our Freedom of Will that Privation consists which Constitutes Error) is not fully Demonstrated.

It’s true, to Affirm or Deny statements, to Defend or Oppose them, are the Acts of the Will; however, it doesn’t follow that Internal Assent relies on the Will. Therefore, the following conclusion (so that the misuse of our Freedom of Will leads to the lack that defines Error) is not completely proven.

ANSWER.

’Tis not much matter, Whether this expression, Great Light, be Argumentative or not, so it be explicative, as really it is, For all men know, that by light in the understanding is meant clearness of knowledge, which every one has not, that thinks he has; and this hinders not but this light in the Understanding may be very different from an obstinate Opinion taken up without clear perception.

It doesn't really matter whether this term, Great Light, is argumentative or not, as long as it explains things, which it definitely does. Everyone knows that light in the understanding refers to clarity of knowledge, something that not everyone who believes they have it actually possesses. This doesn’t change the fact that this light in the understanding can be very different from an obstinate Opinion taken without clear perception.

But when ’tis here said, That we assent to things clearly perceived whether we will or no, ’tis the same, as if it were said, that willing or nilling, we desire Good clearly known; whereas the word Nilling, finds no room in such Expressions, for it implies, that we will and nill the same thing.

But when it's said here, That we agree to things that are clearly perceived whether we want to or not, it’s the same as saying, that whether we desire it or not, we want clearly known Good; whereas the word Nilling has no place in such expressions, since it implies that we both want and don’t want the same thing.


[149]

[149]

OBJECT XIV.
Against the Fifth Meditation. Of the Essence of material things.

* As when for Example, I imagine a Triangle, tho perhaps such a Figure exists no where out of my thoughts, nor ever will exist, yet the Nature thereof is determinate, and its Essence or Form is immutable and eternal, which is neither made by me nor depends on my mind, as appears from this, that many propositions may be demonstrated of this Triangle.

* For example, when I think of a triangle, even though such a shape might not exist outside my mind and probably never will, its nature is clear, and its essence or form is unchangeable and everlasting. It isn’t created by me or dependent on my thoughts, as shown by the fact that many statements can be proven about this triangle.

If a Triangle be no where, I understand not how it can have any Nature, for what is no where, is not, and therefore has not a Being, or any Nature.

If a triangle is nowhere, I don’t see how it can have any nature, because what is nowhere doesn’t exist, and therefore has no being or any nature.

A Triangle in the Mind arises from a Triangle seen, or from one made up of what has been seen, but when once we have given the name of a Triangle to a thing (from which we think the Idea of a Triangle arises) tho the Triangle it self perish, yet the name continues; In the like manner, when we have once conceived in our thought, That all the Angles of a[150] Triangle are equal to two right ones, and when we have given this other name (viz. Having its three Angles equal to two right ones) to a Triangle, tho afterwards there were no such thing in the World, yet the Name would still continue, and this Proposition, A Triangle is a Figure having three Angles equal to two right Ones, would be eternally true. But the Nature of a Triangle will not be eternal if all Triangles were destroy’d.

A Triangle in the Mind comes from a Triangle seen, or from one made up of what has been seen. Once we label something as a Triangle (from which we think the Idea of a Triangle comes), even if the Triangle itself disappears, the name remains. Similarly, once we conceive in our minds, That all the Angles of a [150] Triangle are equal to two right ones, and we give this other name (i.e., Having its three Angles equal to two right ones) to a Triangle, even if such a thing no longer exists in the World, the Name would persist, and this Proposition, A Triangle is a Figure having three Angles equal to two right Ones, would be eternally true. However, the Nature of a Triangle wouldn't be eternal if all Triangles were destroyed.

This Proposition likewise, A Man is an Animal, will be true to Eternity, because the Word Animal will eternally signifie what the Word Man signifies; but certainly if Mankind perish, Humane Nature will be no longer.

This proposition, A Man is an Animal, will be true for all time because the word Animal will always mean what the word Man means; but if Mankind ceases to exist, Human Nature will no longer be.

From whence ’tis Manifest, That Essence as ’tis distinguish’d from Existence is nothing more than the Copulation of Names by this word Is, and therefore Essence without Existence is meerly a Fiction of our own; and as the Image of a Man in the Mind is to a Man, so it seems Essence is to Existence. Or as this Proposition Socrates is a Man, is to this, Socrates Is or Exists, so is the Essence of Socrates to his Existence. Now this Proposition,[151] Socrates is a Man, when Socrates does not exist, signifies only the Connection of the Names, and the word Is carries under it the Image of the unity of the thing, which is called by these Two Names.

From where it’s clear, that Essence as it’s distinguished from Existence is nothing more than the Connection of Names through this word Is, and therefore Essence without Existence is merely a Fiction of our own; and just like the Image of a Man in the Mind relates to a Man, Essence relates to Existence. Or as this statement Socrates is a Man relates to this, Socrates Is or Exists, so does the Essence of Socrates relate to his Existence. Now this statement, [151] Socrates is a Man, when Socrates does not exist, signifies only the Connection of the Names, and the word Is implies the Image of the unity of the thing known by these Two Names.

ANSWER.

The Difference between Essence and Existence is known to all Men. And what is here said of Eternal Names instead of Eternal Truth, has been long ago sufficiently rejected.

The difference between Essence and Existence is known to everyone. And what is mentioned here about Eternal Names instead of Eternal Truth has been thoroughly dismissed a long time ago.


OBJECT. XV.
Against the Sixth Meditation. Of the Existence of Material Beings.

* And seeing God has given me no Faculty to know whether these Ideas proceed from Bodies or not, but rather a strong inclination to believe, that these Ideas are sent from Bodies, I see no reason, why God should not be counted a Deceiver, if these Ideas came from any where, but from Corporeal Beings, and therefore we must conclude that Corporeal Beings exist.

* Since God hasn’t given me the ability to know whether these ideas come from physical objects or not, but instead a strong tendency to think that these ideas are sent by physical objects, I see no reason why God shouldn't be seen as a deceiver if these ideas came from anywhere other than physical beings. Therefore, we must conclude that physical beings do exist.

[152]

[152]

’Tis a received opinion, that Physicians who deceive their Patients for their Healths sake, and Fathers, who deceive their Children for their Good, are guilty thereby of no Crimes, for the fault of Deceit does not consist in the falsity of Words; but in the Injury done to the Person deceived.

It’s a common belief that doctors who mislead their patients for their benefit, and fathers who lie to their children for their sake, aren’t committing any wrongdoing. The issue of deceit isn’t about the falsehood of the words used, but rather the harm caused to the person being deceived.

Let D. Cartes therefore consider whether this Proposition, God can upon no account deceive us, Universally taken be true; For if it be not true so universally taken, that Conclusion, Therefore Corporeal Beings exist, will not follow.

Let D. Cartes therefore consider whether this Proposition, God can never deceive us, is universally true; for if it is not true in that broad sense, then the conclusion, Therefore Corporeal Beings exist, will not hold.

ANSWER.

’Tis not requisite for the establishment of my Conclusion, That we cannot be deceived on any account (for I willingly granted, that we may be often deceived) but that we cannot be deceived, when that our Error argues that in God there is such a Will to Cheat us as would be contradictious to his Nature. And here again we have a wrong inference in this Objection.

It's not necessary for me to establish my conclusion, that we cannot be deceived on any account (since I readily admit that we can be often deceived), but that we cannot be deceived when our error suggests that God has a will to cheat us, which would contradict His nature. And here again we have a wrong inference in this objection.


[153]

[153]

The Last Objection.

* For now I plainly discover a great difference between them (that is sleep and waking) for my Dreams are never conjoyn’d by my Memory, with the other Actions of my Life.

* For now I can clearly see a big difference between them (sleep and wakefulness) because my dreams are never connected in my memory to the other events of my life.

I desire to Know, whether it be certain, that a Man dreaming, that the doubts whether he dream or not, may not Dream, that he joyns his Dream to the Ideas of things past long since; if he may, than those Actions of his past life, may be thought as true if he were awake.

I want to understand if it's certain that a person who is dreaming has doubts about whether he is dreaming or not, and if he might dream that he connects his dream to the ideas of things that happened a long time ago. If he can do that, then those actions from his past life might be considered true as if he were awake.

Moreover because (as D. Cartes affirms) the Certainty and truth of all knowledge depends only on the knowledge of the True God, either an Atheist cannot from the Memory of his past life conclude that he is awake, or else ’tis possible for a man to know that he is awake without the Knowledge of the True God.

Moreover, because (as D. Cartes states) the certainty and truth of all knowledge depend solely on the knowledge of the True God, either an Atheist cannot conclude from the memory of his past life that he is awake, or it’s possible for a person to know that he is awake without the knowledge of the True God.

ANSWER.

A Man that dreams cannot really connect his dreams with the Ideas of past things, tho, I confess, he may dream that[154] he so connects them; for whoever deny’d That a man when he is a sleep may be Deceived? But when he awakens he may easily discover his Error.

A man who dreams cannot really link his dreams with the Ideas of past things, though I admit, he might dream that[154] he connects them; for who can deny that a man when he is asleep can be Deceived? But when he wakes up, he can easily find out his mistake.

An Atheist from the memory of his past life may collect that he is awake, but he cannot know, that this Sign is sufficient to make him certain, that he is not deceived, unless he know that he is created by a God that will not deceive him.

An atheist, recalling his past life, might realize that he is awake, but he can’t be sure that this Sign is enough to make him certain that he isn’t deceived, unless he understands that he is created by a God who will not deceive him.

FINIS.

FIN.


[155]

[155]

A Catalogue of some Books sold by Benjamin Took at the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard.

A Catalogue of some Books sold by Benjamin Took at the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard.

Herodoti Halicarnassei Historiarum libri novem ejusdem narratio de vita Homeri, Gr. Lat. & H. Stephani Apologia pro Herodoto accesserunt huic Edition Chronologia Historia, & Tabula Geographica Herodotææ, necnon variantes Lectiones & notæ ex pluribus M. S. S. Cod. & Antiquis scriptoribus collectæ. fol.

Herodotus of Halicarnassus, The Nine Books of Histories his account of Homer's life, Greek and Latin. An Apology for Herodotus by H. Stephen is included in this edition, along with a Chronology of History and a Geographical Map of Herodotus, as well as various readings and notes collected from many manuscripts, ancient texts, and writers. fol.

Francisci Suarez. Doct. Theol. Grau. Tractatus de Legibus ac Deo Legislatore in decem libros distributus. fol.

Francisci Suarez. Doctor of Theology. Degree. Treatise on Laws and God the Legislator divided into ten books. fol.

Thorndicius de Ratione ac Jure finiendi Controversias Ecclesiæ. fol.

Thorndicius on the Reason and Law for Settling Church Disputes. fol.

The Holy Court in five Tomes, written in French by N. Causin, translated by Sir T. H. the fourth Edition. fol.

The Holy Court in five volumes, written in French by N. Causin, translated by Sir T. H., the fourth edition. fol.

The Works of the most Reverend John Bramhal, D. D. late L. Archbishop of Armagh, some of which never before printed, with the life of the Author, &c. fol.

The Works of the Most Reverend John Bramhal, D.D., former Archbishop of Armagh, some of which have never been printed before, along with the life of the author, &c. fol.

The History and Vindication of the Irish Remonstrance against all Calumnies and[156] Censures in several Treatises. folio.

The History and Defense of the Irish Response to all Accusations and[156] Criticism in several Essays. folio.

A Collection of all the Statutes now in use in the Kingdom of Ireland, with Notes in the Margin. And likewise the Acts of Settlement and Explanation, with the rest of the Acts, made in the Reign of his Majesty that now is, to the dissolution of the Parliament, Aug. 7. 1666.

A collection of all the laws currently in use in the Kingdom of Ireland, with notes in the margins. It also includes the Acts of Settlement and Explanation, along with the other Acts passed during the reign of the current King, up until the dissolution of Parliament on Aug. 7. 1666.

Several Chyrurgical Treatises by Rich. Wiseman, Serjeant Chyrurgion. folio.

Several surgical treatises by Rich. Wiseman, Serjeant Surgeon. folio.

The Primitive Origination of Mankind considered and examined, according to the light of Nature, written by Sir M. Hale, Kt. late Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. folio.

The Primitive Origination of Mankind considered and examined, according to the light of Nature, written by Sir M. Hale, Kt. late Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. folio.

Sir Rich. Baker’s Chronicle of the Kings of England from the Romans Government to this time.

Sir Rich. Baker’s Chronicle of the Kings of England from the Roman Era to Now.

Thirty five Sermons by the Right Reverend R. Sanderson late Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Thirty-five sermons by the Right Reverend R. Sanderson, former Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Le Beau Pledeur, a Book of Entries containing Declarations, Informations, and other select and approved Pleadings; with special Verdicts and Demurrers in most actions real, personal, and mixt, which have been argued and adjudged in the Courts of Westminster, with faithfull[157] references to the most authentick Law Books, by Sir Humphry Winch, Kt. sometimes one of the Justices of the Court of Common Pleas, fol.

Le Beau Pledeur, a Book of Entries containing Declarations, Information, and other selected and approved Pleadings; with special Verdicts and Demurrers in most real, personal, and mixed actions that have been argued and ruled in the Courts of Westminster, with accurate[157] references to the most authentic Law Books, by Sir Humphry Winch, Kt., who was sometimes one of the Justices of the Court of Common Pleas, fol.

Etymologicon Linguæ Anglicanæ; seu explicatio vocum Anglicarum Etymologica ex propriis fontibus. Omnia Alphabetico ordine in quinque distinctas Classes digesta. Authore Step. Skinner, M.D. folio.

Etymologicon of the English Language; or an explanation of English words etymologically from their original sources. All arranged in alphabetical order in five distinct classes. By Step. Skinner, M.D. folio.

A large Dictionary in three Parts by Tho. Holyoake D.D. folio.

A large dictionary in three parts by Tho. Holyoake D.D. folio.

Horæ Hebraicæ & Talmudicæ impensæ in Evangelium S. Johannis. p. I. Lightfoot. quarto.

Hebrew and Talmudic Hours spent on the Gospel of St. John. p. I. Lightfoot. quarto.

Doctor Browns Travels in Hungaria, Servia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, &c. As also through a great part of Germany, with Observations on the Mines, Baths, and mineral Waters in those Parts, illustrated with the Figures of some habits and remarkable places. quarto.

Doctor Browns journeyed through Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and more. He also explored significant parts of Germany, offering insights on the mines, baths, and mineral waters in those regions, accompanied by illustrations of some attire and notable locations. quarto.

A Representation of the State of Christianity in England, and of its Decay and Danger from Sectaries as well as Papists.

A Report on the Condition of Christianity in England, and Its Decline and Threat from Sectarians as well as Catholics.

The Controversial Letters, or the grand Controversie, concerning the pretended authority of Popes and true Soveraign of Kings, in 16 Letters. quarto.

The Controversial Letters, or the grand Controversy, concerning the supposed authority of Popes and true Sovereign of Kings, in 16 Letters. quarto.

[158]

[158]

A True Widow, a Comedy written by T. Shadwel. quarto.

A True Widow, a Comedy written by T. Shadwell. quarto.

A Vindication of the sincerity of the Protestant Religion in the point of Obedience to Sovereigns, opposed to the Doctrine of Rebellion authorised and practised by the Pope and the Jesuites, by Peter Du Moulin. quarto.

A Defense of the sincerity of the Protestant Faith regarding Obedience to Rulers, in contrast to the Doctrine of Rebellion endorsed and practiced by the Pope and the Jesuits, by Peter Du Moulin. quarto.

Phocæna, or the Anatomy of a Porpess dissected at Gresham Colledge, with a Preliminary discourse concerning Anatomy, and a Natural History of Animals. quar.

Phocæna, or the Anatomy of a Porpoise dissected at Gresham College, with a Preliminary discourse about Anatomy, and a Natural History of Animals. quar.

Dodwells separation of Churches from Episcopal Government, as practised by the present Nonconformists proved Schismatical from such principles as are least controverted, and do withal most popularly explain the sinfulness and mischief of Schism. quarto.

Dodwell's separation of churches from Episcopal governance, as practiced by today's Nonconformists, is deemed schismatic based on principles that are generally not disputed and clearly illustrate the wrongfulness and harm of schism. quarto.

—Two Letters of Advice. 1. For the susception of Holy Orders. 2. For Studies Theological, especially such as are rational; at the end of the former is inserted a Catalogue of the Christian Writers, and genuine works of the first three Centuries. octavo.

—Two Letters of Advice. 1. For Acceptance of Holy Orders. 2. For Theological Studies, especially those that are rational; at the end of the first letter is a list of Christian writers and authentic works from the first three centuries. octavo.

—Some Considerations of present Concernment; how far Romanists may be[159] trusted by Princes of another Perswasion. octavo.

—Some Considerations of Current Concern; how far Catholics can be[159] trusted by rulers of a different faith. octavo.

—Two short Discourses against the Romanists 1. An Account of the fundamental Principle of Popery. 2. An Answer to six Queries. twelves.

—Two short Discourses against the Romanists 1. A Summary of the Basic Principle of Catholicism. 2. A Response to Six Questions. twelves.

Navigation and Commerce their Original and Progress, containing a succinct account of Traffick in general, by John Evelin, Esq; octavo.

Navigation and Commerce: Their Origins and Development, featuring a brief overview of Trade in general, by John Evelin, Esq; octavo.

Of Gifts and Offices in the publick Worship of God, in three parts, endeavouring an impartial account, what was in the inspired Age of the Church, what succeeded in the more ordinary State; what reasonably may be allowed in Prayer, singing, and preaching, by Edw. Wetenhal, D.D. octavo.

Of Gifts and Roles in Public Worship of God, in three parts, aiming to provide an unbiased account of what existed in the inspired Age of the Church, what followed in the more typical State; what can reasonably be accepted in prayer, singing, and preaching, by Edw. Wetenhal, D.D. octavo.

The Catechism of the Church of England with marginal Notes, very plainly setting forth its meaning, and proving the same out of the Scriptures, for the use of Schools by Edw. Wetenhal, D.D.

The Catechism of the Church of England with side notes that clearly explain its meaning and support it with references from the Scriptures, intended for use in schools by Edw. Wetenhal, D.D.

Poems and Songs by Tho. Flatman. octa.

Poems and Songs by Tho. Flatman. octa.

Poems by N. Tate. octavo.

Poems by N. Tate. Octavo.

The Degrees of Consanguinity affinity described and delineated, by Robert Dixon, D.D. in octavo.

The Degrees of Consanguinity and affinity described and outlined by Robert Dixon, D.D. in octavo.

[160]

[160]

The French Gardiner instructing how to cultivate all sorts of Fruit Trees and Herbs for the Garden, together with instructions to dry and conserve them, written in French, and Englished by Jo. Evelin, Esq; in octavo.

The French Gardener teaching how to grow all kinds of fruit trees and herbs for the garden, along with tips on drying and preserving them, written in French and translated by Jo. Evelin, Esq; in octavo.

Ataxiæ Obstaculum; being an Answer to several Queries dispersed in several parts of Glocestershire in octavo.

Ataxiæ Obstaculum; an Answer to various Questions spread across different regions of Glocestershire in octavo.

S. Gardinerus S. T. P. de Trinitate contra Sandium, in octavo.

S. Gardinerus S. T. P. on the Trinity against Sandius, in octavo.

Deus Nobiscum. A Narrative of a great Deliverance at Sea, by W. Johnson, D.D. Phædri Augusti Cæsaris Liberti Fabularum Esopiarum Libri V. in usum scholarum Anglæ. octavo.

God is with us. A story about a remarkable rescue at sea, by W. Johnson, D.D. Five Books of Aesop's Fables by Phaedrus, freedman of Emperor Augustus, for the use of schools in England. octavo.

A Short View of the chief points in Controversie between the Reformed Churches, and the Church of Rome, by Dr. Peter Du Moulin. in octavo.

A Brief Overview of the Main Points of Disagreement between the Reformed Churches and the Church of Rome, by Dr. Peter Du Moulin. in octavo.

The Country Parsons advice to his Parishioners in two Parts. 1. Containing a plain and serious Exhortation to a Religious Life. 2. General Directions how to live accordingly. in octavo.

The Country Parson's advice to his Parishioners in two Parts. 1. A straightforward and sincere encouragement for a religious life. 2. General guidance on how to live that way. in octavo.

FINIS.

FINIS.


Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!