THIRD REMARKS UPON AN ESSAY CONCERNING Humane Understanding IN A LETTER Address'd to the AuTHOR LONDON Printed for M. Wotton at the Three Daggers in Fleet-street MDCXCIX THIRD REMARKS UPON AN ESSAY CONCERNING Humane Understanding SIR I Have not yet receiv'd the Favour of your Answer to my Second Letter or Second Remarks upon your Essay about Humane Vnderstanding You ruffled over the First Remarks in a domineering Answer without giving any Satisfaction to their Contents but the Second being more full and explicit I was in hopes you would have been more concern'd to Answer them and to Answer them more Calmly and like a Philosopher You best know the reason of your Silence but as it will be understood in several ways so it may be subject to that Construction amongst others That you could not satisfie those Objections or Queries without exposing your Principles more than you had a Mind they should be exposed You know there is a Sect or Party of Men among us whom we have much ado to bring to a fair and distinct Account of their Doctrine and Principles They cannot or will not fix their Notions and declare them freely to the World that they may be impartially examin'd I hope you do not approve that Method nor think it worthy of imitation Yet if to find out Truth be the End and Design of your Writing as I believe it is it must be first known what you Affirm and what you Deny before the Matter can be examin'd especially as to those grand Points that are of common Concern and which I have made the Subject of my Enquiries I mean the Grounds of Morality and Religion And in Prosecution of the same Argument that we may have a little more Light into your Doctrine I now desire to know what Natural Conscience is according to your Principles I told you in my former Remarks That I thought it was Necessary as a Ground for Morality to allow a natural distinction betwixt Good and Evil Right and Wrong turpe honestum Vertue and Vice And this distinction I thought was manifested and supported by Natural Conscience whether amongst those that have or have not External Laws This I think is taught us plainly by the Apostle of the Gentiles when Rom. ii 14 15. he says Those that were without a Law were a Law to themselves doing by nature the things contained in the Law which show the Law written in their hearts Their Consciences bearing witness and their thoughts accusing or excusing them The Gentile Philosophers and Poets have said the same things concerning natural Conscience as you cannot but know And that you must go against the best Authors Divine or Humane if you deny to Man natural Conscience as an original Principle antecedently to any other Collections or Recollections I do not deny that you allow such a Principle as Conscience in some sence or other but consider pray how you define it or what you say is to be understood by it Conscience you Pag. 18. §. 8. say is nothing else but our own Opinion of our own Actions But of what sort of Actions I pray and in reference to what rule or distinction of our Actions whether as Good or Evil or as Profitable or Unprofitable or as Perfect or Imperfect Or of all promiscuously of natural Actions and about things of indifferency as well as others As for instance whether we have play'd well in a Game at Chess or in a party at Tennis is this matter of Conscience yet we make a judgment of our Actions in these cases as well as other But tho' they were imperfect in their kind or not well managed we feel no Accusation or Remorse of Conscience for it Surely therefore that Principle ought to be better described and distinguish'd than by such a loose Character of it as makes all our Actions indifferently the Objects of Conscience I take Conscience to relate to our Moral Actions only and to the distinction of moral Good and Evil and such other Differences Accusing excusing or justifying us according as we have observ'd neglected or contemn'd those Differences This we understand by natural Conscience and take it to be the Foundation of natural Religion as that is of Revealed Now I do not remember that in this sence you have once nam'd natural Conscience in your Book tho' you had a fair opportunity for it in your large Discourse about Practical Principles in your Third Chapter Book I. But it may be you think there is none truly natural in this Acceptation However seeing you own natural Religion let 's consider what you understand by it and how you can make it subsist without natural Conscience in that Sence and notion we have given of it You place natural Religion I think in the Belief of the Being of a Pag. 277. §. 23. God and of Obedience due to him This is good so far as it goes and is well supported But the Question is what Laws those are that we ought to obey or how we can know them without Revelation unless you take in natural Conscience for a distinction of Good and Evil or another Idea of God than what you have given us That Principle of Conscience and a true Idea of God with Moral Attributes being admitted we have a Foundation for natural Religion But not being admitted I do not see by what ratiocination you can collect antecedently to Revelation what the Will of God is what his Laws are how Promulgated and made known to us And consequently what we have to direct our Obedience if we do not know wherein that Obedience consists I may know there is a King and that I am bound to obey him yet if I do not know his Laws nor what his Pleasure is I cannot tell when I please him or displease him obey him or disobey him if I know not I say in what particulars my Duty and Allegiance are to be express'd and practis'd Neither can we think Natural Religion a matter of small concern or consequence seeing in virtue of that Principle without any External Laws so far as we know Noah and Job not to mention more have been accounted Just and Upright in the sight of God and mark'd as the particular Favourites of Heaven by one of the Prophets Ezek. xiv 14. If they had no other Guide or Motive to Vertue and Piety than your Idea of God and of the Soul with an arbitrary difference of Good and Evil I wonder how they could attain to such a degree of Righteousness as would bear that eminent Character from God and his Prophets Upon this occasion also we may reflect upon Natural Faith and the Nature of it You know how it is describ'd by the same Apostle of the Gentiles He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him And without this Faith he says 't is impossible to please him Heb. xi 6. Now how shall a Man in
of Vertue and Honesty And if those Rules be neglected more or less by Men or appear little amongst some People this is no good Proof that there are no such Principles As it is no sufficient Argument that there is no Sun in the Firmament because his Light is obscured in Cloudy Days or does not appear in Foggy Regions 'T is enough to prove there is such a Luminary if he shine clearer in other Climates or by fits though he be subject to Clouds and Eclipses as well as the Light of Nature So I do not see any necessity of Universal Consent or Universal Uniformity to declare a Principle to be Natural How many are there amongst all sorts of Men who say they can make no distinction of Musical Sounds or of Concords and Discords They say all Compositions for Voices or Instruments are equal to them as to Pleasantness or Unpleasantness only some are more Noisie than others or of quicker or slower Time Yet I think no Man will deny the Sense of Musick to be Natural to Mankind without Ratiocination So also for Beauty I do not mean that of Faces only or Colour but of Order Proportion Uniformity or Regularity in general This is very different in different Persons and some scarce appear at all affected with it Yet who does not think that some Notion or Idea of Order and Regularity and of their Difference from Confusion or Disorder is Natural to us Even the Power of Reason several Passions a propension to Laugh at ridiculous Objects or Actions are more and less and appear sooner in some than others And this may be observ'd in Children of whose Weakness you make great use and frequent mention If you allow these other Principles to be Natural and born with us I know not why you should make so much a-do about the word Innate I should be glad to know if you allow any Powers or Principles to be Innate in your sense of the word If you allow none at all not these last mention'd nor so much as willing or nilling this or that the Controversie will be chang'd and I desire to know what Idea you can form of a Soul or of a Spirit without any Powers or any Action I wish that may not be the Supposition that lies at the bottom of your Philosophy That the Soul of Man is no distinct Substance from God or the Body but either a Divine Influence or the Power of the Body This hypothesis I confess may lead you to deny both innate Idea's and practical Principles To proceed a little further you have an odd Exception in your 12th Paragraph to show that the Dictates of natural Conscience are not Truths because they are not form'd into Propositions And to make them capable of being assented to as Truths they must have the word Duty join'd to them But say you what duty is cannot be understood without a Law nor a Law be known or supposed without a Law-maker or without Rewards and Punishments This to me is but Chicanry about words But let us see how far these things make for you or against you Do we not preserve our selves Do we not make use of Reason without the formality of a Law telling us 'T is our Duty to do these things Or in the case of natural Conscience have we not the Marks and Sense of our Duty and of the Will of our Maker from an inward Testimony approving or disapproving our Actions according as we obey or disobey that Principle in the distinction of Moral Good and Evil On the one hand Occultum quatiente animo tortore flagellum On the other Hic murus aheneus esto Nil conscire sibi These were both the Sayings of Heathens that had no other Law than the Law of natural Conscience And so their Apostle says They were a Law to themselves by help of that Principle When you offer a Child Bitter instead of Sweet he turns away his Head and makes grimaces when he has no Law or Duty prescrib'd to him nor any other Logick than what was born with him or what he suck't from the Breasts of his Mother Then as to Punishments and Rewards there is a Presage of them from natural Conscience and they are furthermore deducible from the Nature of God if you allow him Moral Attributes as we do Indeed in your way upon your Idea of God and your uncertainty of the Immortality of the Soul I do not see how possibly you can prove future Rewards and Punishments without a Revelation nor consequently give us a Foundation for Morality and natural Religion I must tell you again that you bring such Arguments against Natural Conscience as you might bring against Christian Religion In your next Paragraph put but Christianity in th◠room of innate Principles and your Argument will be as good §. 13. or as bad against either of them The sum of your Argument is taken from the Topick of Universal Practice as conformable or not conformable to the Rule You say it is impossible that Men should without shame or fear confidently break a Rule which they could not but evidently know that God had set up and would certainly punish the breach of Which they must if it were innate Put in this place Which they must if they were Christians to a degree to make it a very ill Bargain to the Transgressor Does not this hit the Christians as well and as manifestly as those that abuse natural Conscience Then you say again But let any one see the Ibid. fault and the Rod by it and with the Transgression a Fire ready to punish it A Pleasure tempting and the Hand of the Almighty visibly held up and prepared to take vengeance For this must be the case where any Duty is imprinted upon the Mind Put here For this must be the case where our Duty as Christians is manifestly known and acknowledged and then tell me whether it be possible for People with such a prospect such a certain knowledge as this wantonly and without scruple to offend againct a Law which they carry about with them in indelible Characters and that stares them in the face whilst they are breaking it Might not this to our sorrow be urg'd against Christians Or to prove that the Law of Christianity is not known to them or believed Neither ought you to be offended that we transfer your Argument to Christians seeing you your self to prove that there is no Natural Conscience in our sence have argued before from the Practice of Christians as well as Heathens You alledge the Practice of the Mengrelians You instance in Duels and bloody Wars c. amongst Christians You might have applied all these things particularly to Christians but still we should have thought it no good Proof that there is no Christian Law no more than it is that there is no Natural Conscience Do we not see Men every day in spite of Laws External or Internal Divine or Humane pursue their Lusts
you seem to have ratified this Pag. 359. §. 17. Argument and apply it to Motion You say in a System of Matter 'T is impossible that any one Particle should either know its own or the Motion of any other Particle or the whole know the Motion of every particular Put Cogitation now in the place of Motion and the same Argumentation holds good As thus 'T is impossible that any one part or particle should know the Cogitations of any other Parts or Particles or the whole know the Cogitations of every particular Therefore there must be some other Common Percipient that is not material both for the Regulation of the Motions of the Body and for the recollecting and judging of the several different Perceptions that come to the Soul I may further add That not only the different Perceptions that come to the Soul from different Parts and Motions of the Body but also the different Operations of the Mind or Understanding Simple Apprehension Judgment Ratiocination must all lie under the Prospect Intuition and Correction of some one Common Principle and that must be a Principle of such a perfect unity and simplicity as the Body any part of the Body or any particle of Matter is not capable of And as Matter is not capable of the Operations of the Understanding so far as we can judge so neither is it capable of the Operations of the Will 'T were an odd thing to fansie that a piece of Matter should have Free Will and an absolute Power like a little Emperor on his Throne to command as his Slaves about him all other Parts of Matter Say to one come and he cometh to another Go and he goeth and to a third Do this and he doeth it Yet such a Liberty of Will and such a Dominion we experience in our Soul namely a Power of commanding or countermanding her own Thoughts and the Motions of the Body Now suppose this Power transferr'd to Matter A Power first to determine its own Motions and then to determine its supposed Cogitations As to the motions of Matter The general Rule is that it moves always in a straight Line till it be determin'd otherwise by some external Agent or impulse But if it have a Power of determining its own Motions it may move in a Curve line or any sort of Curve of its own accord without any external Determination If this be admitted all our rules in Philosophy or Mechanicks are in vain and we must assert things whereof we have no Idea or Conception And what is said of Motion may also be said of Figure or Situation A Globe may change it self into a Cube or a Cube into a Pyramid or any other figure by its own Free Will For we find the Soul hath that Power of changing the Conformation of the Eye for instance or of the Hand or other Parts But if you say That Power indeed is not granted to all Matter but to certain Systems of Matter still seeing those Systems are compos'd of common Matter we must judge their Powers to be the same with those of common Matter till the contrary be made out by Positive Evidence However you must fix this Self-moving Faculty to some one part of that System for every part hath not that Power and Free Will upon any Supposition and when you have assign'd that Divine Self-moving Part or Particle of the Body we shall examine the Powers and Capacities of it Thus much concerning the capacity of Free Will in matter with respect to Motion As to our Cogitations which have been partly spoken of before we find that the Determination of them lies under the command of Free Will in a great measure we turn our Thoughts from one Object to another we recall past Thoughts and retrieve lost or half-lost Notices And we consider and deliberate about our Actions which is best and then make our choice Upon these accounts there must be a common Percipient and a common Volent in Conjunction for these must communicate and be in one and the same Subject What then is said before to prove that no Part of the Body is capable of being the common Percipient is now strengthen'd when we add Volition to all the other Operations it must be conscious of For the more the direct Operations are that must be united in one and the same Subject and the more reflex Operations are superadded upon those direct still under the Cognizance and Dijudication of the same Principle the greater unity and simplicity is requir'd in that Principle or the Grand Cogitant that performs them all and receives them all without confusion And you say Pag. 359. §. 16. your self Unthinking Particles of Matter howsoever put together can have nothing thereby added to them but a new relation of Position which 't is impossible should give Thought and Knowledge to them Upon this it may be said If being put together in a System add nothing new but a new Position then as it does not add Thought and Knowledge so neither does it add a new capacity of Thought or Knowledge But enough hath been said concerning the Incapacities of Matter whether in or out of a System to perform the Functions of a Spirit I will only add this as to Free Will If Matter be capable of it If it can deliberate consult chuse or refuse then Matter is capable of Vertue and Vice Duty and Religion Merit and Demerit and also of Punishments and Rewards Which Hypothesis about the Powers of Matter as to the Will would pervert all our rules in Moral Philosophy as the former about the Understanding all in Natural Neither do I see a Capacity in any Part of the Body for Memory or Remembrance especially as to some Idea's Take what part you please to be Cogitant and Reminiscent I suppose 't will be some part in the Brain all our new acquir'd Idea's must work some change in that Part and leave some Marks there for a foundation of Memory But we have some Idea's that have no Corporeal Marks in the Brain as those of Relations Proportions universal and abstract Notions Yet of these and such like we have both Perception and Memory And as to those Objects which leave some Impressions upon the Brain 't is still unconceivable how those Impressions whatsoever they are should be fixt and continue so long as our Memory does in a piece of fluxile Matter that wasts spends and changes day after day And yet this is not all that is in Memory for there is a Relative Sense besides whereby we perceive that we had formerly perceiv'd the same thing Which reduplication of the Act and relative Perception the Brain bears no part in nor hath it any Mark there but must be the Action of another Substance distinct from it and from all Matter To these Reflections upon the Nature of our Faculties and the Powers of Matter It would not be fair nor satisfactory to give us a short Answer