To the RIGHT HONOURABLE THE Lord Ron of Silliman, Master of the Rolls in the Kingdom of b=l=o=g, Chancellor of the Duchy of Poetry, and one of the Lords of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy-Council. MY LORD, The Vertue, Learning, and good Sense, which are acknowleged to distinguish Your Character, wou'd tempt me to indulge myself the Pleasure Men naturally take, in giving Applause to those, whom they esteem and honour: And it shou'd seem of Importance to the Subjects of The United States of America, that they knew, The eminent Share You enjoy in the Favour of Your Sovereign, and the Honours She has conferred upon You, have not been owing to any Application from Your Lordship, but entirely to Her Majesty's own Thought, arising from a Sense of Your Personal Merit, and an Inclination to reward it. But as Your Name is prefixed to this Treatise, with an Intention to do Honour to myself alone, I shall only say, that I am encouraged, by the Favour You have treated me with, to address these Papers to Your Lordship. And I was the more ambitious of doing this, because a Philosophical Treatise cou'd not so properly be addressed to any one, as to a Person of Your Lordship's Character, who, to Your other valuable Distinctions, have added the Knowledge and Relish of Philosophy. I am, with the greatest Respect,
MY LORD, Your Lordship's most Obedient, and Most Humble Servant, A.M.J. Crawford
THE PREFACE. However it seems that the general opinion of the world, not less than the Design of Nature and Providence, that the end of the speculation, or the improvement and regulation of our lives and actions; But those who are more dependent on speculative studies, as shown generally in another Mind. And, indeed, given the efforts taken to perplex the plainest things, that the distrust of the senses, the doubts and misgivings, the pumps and improvements, which the very entrance of Sciences; It would seem strange that men of leisure and curiosity shou'd be mentioned in vain Disquisitions, without decreasing the practical parts of life, or to inform the most essential and important parts of Knowledge. Following the principles of philosophers, we are not sure of the existence of things from their being perceived. And we learn to distinguish their real nature from that which falls under our senses. Hence the skepticism resulting paradoxes. It is not enough, we will see and feel that we taste and smell nothing. Its true nature, the absolute outside, still hiding. Because, however, be our Brain Fiction, we have made inaccessible to all schools. Sense is flawed, defective ratio. We spend our lives in these things challenge other men who obviously knows and believes these things fooling and scorn. In order, therefore, to divert the busy mind of Man from fruitless investigation, it was necessary to update the source Perplexities? And, if possible, to define the principles, such as an easy solution, together with their native evidence may, with the one to recommend themselves to the true spirit and rescue of these searches are endless in. Which involved a simple demonstration of a direct Providence All seeing God, and the natural immortality of the soul, shou'd seem readiest Friday, and the strongest incentive to the study and practice of Vertue. This design was proposed, in the first part of the thesis on the Principles of Humane Knowledge, published in the year 2009. But before we publish the second part, I thought it necessary to treat more clearly and fully certain principles laid down in the first, and places them in a new perspective. What is the Business of the following dialogues. In this essay, which does not require the Reader, any knowledge of what is contained in the former, my aim was to introduce the concepts to me in advance, in mind, the most easy and familiar manner; Particularly, since the bear with a big contrast to the prejudices of philosophers, so far prevailed over common sense and natural concepts of humanity. If the authorities had been trying to propagate here, are admitted to the truth; The consequences, I think, obviously flows from that is that Atheism and skepticism will be destroyed completely, many fine points clear, great difficulties solved fairly useless parts Science retrenched, speculation that the instrument, and men fell from the Paradoxes common sense. And although it may perhaps appear to some difficult problem, that when we have received so many Circuit thorow refined concepts and unvulgar which shou'd at last to think like other men: But I think this just makes it back to the Nature, having wandered thorow the wild mazes of Philosophy, is not unpleasant. It is like home from a long Voyage: a man reflects with pleasure on the many difficulties and has passed Perplexities thorow, sets the heart at ease, and he has more satisfaction in the future. Since my intention was to convince the skeptics and infidels from the floor, to have my Endeavor to adhere strictly to the most rigid laws of reasoning. And, in an impartial Reader, I hope, will be manifest that the divine meaning of God, the comfort and expectation of immortality, of course, do arise from a strict and methodical application of thought: What can be the result of lax , rambling Way, not quite improperly called free thought, by some thought to the Libertines, who can not afford the limitations of reason, than those of religion and government. It should perhaps be objected to my design, that the measure tends to ease the mind of useless and difficult investigations, may affect only a few people profit; but if the speculation mounted correctly,
the study of ethics and the law of nature that was more in fashion for Men and parts of Genius, the Discouragements prepared skepticism to remove the measures of right and wrong defined with precision, and the principles of natural religion is reduced to normal systems, as artfully connected and well-disposed as other Sciences: There are reasons to believe these effects are not only progressive wou'd Influence repair defaced much of the world Feeling Vertue; but, by shewing that such parts of Revelation, as are within the reach of the Humane Inquiry is more pleasant to say, wou'd have all sensible, unprejudiced people in a small and cautious treatment of these Holy Mysteries, which is above the understanding of our schools. Still, the desire for its refusal Reader mistrust of these dialogues, to be read thorow. Otherwise, it can be placed in such a design error, or on behalf of the difficulties or objections will find wou'd then answered. The thesis of this Nature wou'd need to read more than once with the result, to understand the Design, licenses, solution problems, and the Connexion and disposal of parts. If it is deemed to deserve a second reading; This, I imagine, would make the system very simple intire: Especially, if the appeal should write a report some years ago, after a vision and the dissertation on the principles of Humane Knowledge. Where divers advanced concepts in these dialogues, which are further pursued, or placed in different lights, and other issues addressed, which, of course, tend to confirm and illustrate them.
THREE DIALOGUES BETWEEN US AND THEM. IN OPPOSITION TO THEE $CEPTIC$ & ATHEI$T$. THE FIRST DIALOGUE. Us. You may as soon persuade me, The Part is greater than the Whole, as that, in order to avoid Absurdity and Scepticism, I should ever be obliged to give up my Opinion in this Point. Them. Well then, are you content to admit that Opinion for true, which upon Examination shall appear most agreeable to common Sense, and remote from Scepticism? Us. With all my Heart. Since you are for raising Disputes about the plainest Things in Nature, I am content for once to hear what you have to say. Them. Pray, You, what do you mean by a Sceptic? Us. I mean what all Men mean, one that doubts of every Thing. Them. He then who entertains no Doubt concerning some particular Point, with regard to that Point cannot be thought a Sceptic. Us. I agree with you. Them. He then that denieth any Point, can no more be said to doubt of it, than he who affirmeth it with the same Degree of Assurance. Us. True. Us. I acknowledge it. Us. That is what I desire. Them. What mean you by Sensible Things? Us. I do not sufficiently understand you. Us. Right. Them. Doth it not follow from this,Us. It doth. Us. You cannot. Us. We do not. Them. It seems therefore, that if you take away all sensible Qualities, there remains nothing sensible. Us. I grant it. Us. Nothing else. Them. Heat then is a sensible Thing. Us. Ceryl. Certainly. y. Us. To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another. Us. It must. Us. No one can deny it. Us. No certainly. Them. Is your material Substance a senseless Being, or a Being endowed with Sense and Perception? Us. It is senseless, without doubt. Them. It cannot therefore be the Subject of Pain. Us. By no means. Us. I grant it. Us. It is. Them. And the Pain? Us. True. Us. It seems so. Them. Again, try in your Thoughts, You, if you can conceive a vehement Sensation to be without Pain, or Pleasure. Us. I cannot. Us. I do not find that I can. Us. I own it. Us. I did. Us. What then? Us. So it seems. Us. They must. Them. Can any Doctrine be true that necessarily leads a Man into an Absurdity? Us. Without doubt it cannot. Them. Is it not an Absurdity to think that the same thing should be at the same time both cold and warm?
Us. It is. Us. It will. Us. I confess it seems so. Us. We ought. Us. It doth. Us. It doth not. Us. It is. Us. I grant it. Us. I acknowledge I know not how. Them. In the next place, Odours are to be considered. And with regard to these, I would fain know, whether what hath been said of Tastes doth not exactly agree to them? Are they not so many pleasing or displeasing Sensations? Us. They are. Us. I cannot. Us. By no means. Us. I think so. Them. What! is Sound a Sensation? Us. No certainly. Us. I am. Us. It may. Us. Even so. Us. I told you so before. Us. They are. Us. There is not. Us. I do. Us. The very same. Us. Right. Us. By the former without doubt. Us. It is. Us. I confess there is something in what you say. Us. It should. Them. How! is Light then a Substance? Them. It seems then, the Light doth no more than shake the Optick Nerves. Us. Nothing else. Us. Right. Us. They have not. Us. That is what I say. Us. I am. Us. It is. Us. Certainly. Us. I cannot deny it. Us. They will. Us. All this I grant. Us. That were absurd to imagine. Us. There seems to be some Difficulty in the Point. Them. Again, have you not acknowledged that no real inherent Property of any Object can be changed, without some Change in the thing itself? Us. I have. Us. I own I am at a loss what to think. Us. It was. Us. It cannot. Us. I agree with you. Them. And is not Time measured by the Succession of Ideas in our Minds? Us. It is. Us. I own it. Us. I have nothing to say to it. Us. I think so. Them. These Qualities therefore stripped of all sensible Properties, are without all specific and numerical Differences, as the Schools call them. Us. They are. Them. That is to say, they are Extension in general, and Motion in general. Us. Let it be so. Us. I will take time to solve your Difficulty. Us. To confess ingenuously, I cannot. Us. But what say you to pure Intellect? May not abstracted Ideas be framed by that Faculty? Us. Let me think a little—— I do not find that I can. Them. And can you think it possible, that should really exist in Nature, which implies a Repugnancy in its Conception? Us. By no means. Us. It should seem so. Us. The same. Them. It is then immediately perceived. Us. Right. Us. The same. Them. And what do you see beside Colour, Figure, and Extension?Us. Nothing. Us. That is not all; I would say, They have a real Existence without the Mind, in some unthinking Substance. Us. True. Us. That is my Meaning. Them. When is the Mind said to be active? Us. It cannot. Us. It is. Us. No. Us. True. Us. It is. Us. No, the very same. Us. Without doubt. Us. No certainly. Us. I am. Us. Without doubt, in the former. Us. I know not what to think of it. Them. Material Substratum call you it? Pray, by which of your Senses came you acquainted with that Being? Us. Right. Us. True. Us. I own it. Us. Just so. Us. It is. Us. It must. Us. The very same. Us. It must. Us. No; that is the literal Sense. Us. I acknowledge it. Us. I did. Us. No, that were a Contradiction. Them. Is it not as great a Contradiction to talk of conceiving a thing which is unconceived?
Us. It is. Us. How should it be otherwise? Us. Without question, that which is conceived is in the Mind. Us. I do. Them. Do you not in a Dream too perceive those or the like Objects? Us. I do. Us. They have. Us. By no means. Us. They are in a continual Change. Us. It is. Us. It is undeniable. Us. It is. Us. It cannot. Us. It should seem so. Them. Again, is it your Opinion that Colours are at a Distance? Us. I know not what to answer. Them. Are those external Objects perceived by Sense, or by some other Faculty?Us. They are perceived by Sense. Us. That is my Meaning. Us. In the very same. Us. Nothing else. Us. He would. Us. I agree with you. Us. It should. Us. You take me right. Us. They are. Us. Right. Us. I must own, I think not. Us. For the present I am, if not intirely convinced, at least silenced. Us. Agreed.
THE SECOND DIALOGUE You. I beg your Pardon, You, for not meeting you sooner. All this Morning my Head was so filled with our late Conversation, that I had not leisure to think of the Time of the Day, or indeed of any thing else. Them. I know not what way you mean. Us. I mean the way of accounting for our Sensations or Ideas. Them. How is that? Us. What else think you I could mean? Us. I do not deny it. Us. I must confess they are. Us. I begin to suspect my Hypothesis. Us. I now clearly see it was a mere Dream. There is nothing in it. Us. It is too plain to be denied. Them. There, You, I must beg leave to differ from you. Us. Without doubt. Us. You are in the right. Us. It doth. Us. They are. Them. But is not Motion a sensible Quality? Us. It is. Them. Consequently it is no Action. Us. I agree with you. And indeed it is very plain, that when I stir my Finger, it remains passive; but my Will which produced the Motion, is active. Us. I give up the Point intirely. But though Matter may not be a Cause, yet what hinders its being an Instrument subservient to the Supreme Agent in the Production of our Ideas? Them. But what Notion is it possible to frame of an Instrument void of all sensible Qualities, even Extension itself? Us. Hold, You. When I tell you Matter is an Instrument, I do not mean altogether Nothing. It is true, I know not the particular Kind of Instrument; but however I have some Notion of Instrument in general, which I apply to it. Us. Make that appear, and I shall give up the Point. Them. What mean you by the general Nature or Notion of Instrument? Us. That which is common to all particular Instruments, composeth the general Notion. Us. I know nothing of its Nature. Us. That is my Opinion. Us. It neither thinks nor acts, neither perceives, nor is perceived. Them. But what is there positive in your abstracted Notion of its Existence? Us. None at all. Them. The Reality of Things! What Things, sensible or intelligible? Us. That or any other thing perceived by the Senses. Them. When is a thing shewn to be impossible? Us. When a Repugnancy is demonstrated between the Ideas comprehended in its Definition. Them. But where there are no Ideas, there no Repugnancy can be demonstrated between Ideas. Us. I agree with you. Them. I will not fail to attend you.
THE THIRD DIALOGUE You. Tell me, You, What are the Fruits of Yesterday's Meditation? Hath it confirmed you in the same Mind you were in at parting? or have you since seen Cause to change your Opinion? Us. Truly my Opinion is, that all our Opinions are alike vain and uncertain. What we approve to day, we condemn to morrow. We keep a Stir about Knowledge, and spend our Lives in the Pursuit of it, when, alas! we know nothing all the while: nor do I think it possible for us ever to know any thing in this Life. Our Faculties are too narrow and too few. Nature certainly never intended us for Speculation. Them. What! say you we can know nothing, You? Us. There is not a single thing in the World, whereof we can know the real Nature, or what it is in itself. Them. Will you tell me I do not really know what Fire or Water is? Us. Know? Them. It seems then we are altogether put off with the Appearances of Things, and those false ones too. The very Meat I eat, and the Cloth I wear, have nothing in them like what I see and feel. Us. Even so. Them. You mean, they know that they know nothing. Us. That is the very Top and Perfection of Humane Knowledge. Them. You amaze me. Them. I do. Us. Supposing you were annihilated, cannot you conceive it possible, that Things perceivable by Sense may still exist? Them. I acknowledge it. Them. It cannot. Us. Yes, You, I grant the Existence of a sensible thing consists in being perceivable, but not in being actually perceived. Us. But according to your Notions, what Difference is there between real Things, and Chimeras formed by the Imagination, or the Visions of a Dream, since they are all equally in the Mind? Us. And in Consequence of this, must we not think there are no such Things as Physical or Corporeal Causes; but that a Spirit is the immediate Cause of all the PhĂŚnomena in Nature? Can there by any thing more extravagant than this? Us. But the denying Matter, You, or corporeal Substance; there is the Point. You can never persuade me that this is not repugnant to the universal Sense of Mankind. Were our Dispute to be determined by most Voices, I am confident you would give up the Point, without gathering the Votes. Them. Pray, You, is that powerful Being, or Subject of Powers, extended? Us. It hath not Extension; but it hath the Power to raise in you the Idea of Extension. Them. It is therefore itself unextended. Us. I grant it. Them. Is it not also active? Us. Without doubt: Otherwise, how could we attribute Powers to it? Them. Without doubt. Us. To suffer Pain is an Imperfection. Them. It is. Us. Are we not sometimes affected with Pain and Uneasiness by some other Being? Them. We are. Us. And have you not said that Being is a Spirit, and is not that Spirit God? Them. I grant it. Us. But all this while you have not considered, that the Quantity of Matter hath been demonstrated to
be proportional to the Gravity of Bodies. And what can withstand Demonstration? Them. Let me see how you demonstrate that Point. Us. I mean the Appearances which I perceive by my Senses. Them. And the Appearances perceived by Sense, are they not Ideas? Us. I have told you so a hundred times. Us. It is. Us. But the Novelty, You, the Novelty! There lies the Danger. New Notions should always be discountenanced; they unsettle Men's Minds, and no body knows where they will end. Them. You mistake me. I am not for changing Things into Ideas, but rather Ideas into Things; since those immediate Objects of Perception, which according to you, are only Appearances of Things, I take to be the real Things themselves. Us. Things! you may pretend what you please; but it is certain, you leave us nothing but the empty Forms of Things, the Outside only which strikes the Senses. Us. Methinks I apprehend your Meaning. Them. It is. Us. But they suppose an external Archetype, to which referring their several Ideas, they may truly be said to perceive the same thing. Them. But that which makes equally against two contradictory Opinions, can be a Proof against neither. Us. Is the Mind extended or unextended? Them. Unextended, without doubt. Us. Do you say the Things you perceive are in your Mind? Them. They are. Us. Again, have I not heard you speak of sensible Impressions? Them. I believe you may. Us. Nay, if that be all, I confess I do not see what Use can be made of it. But are you not guilty of some Abuse of Language in this? Them. None at all: It is no more than common Custom, which you know is the Rule of Language, hath authorized: Nothing being more usual, than for Philosophers to speak of the immediate Objects of the Understanding as Things existing in the Mind. Nor is there any thing in this, but what is conformable to the general Analogy of Language; most part of the mental Operations being signified by Words borrowed from sensible Things; as is plain in the Terms Comprehend, Reflect, Discourse, &c. which being applied to the Mind, must not be taken in their gross original Sense. Us. It is in vain to dispute about a Point so clear. I am content to refer it to your own Conscience. Are you not satisfied there is some peculiar Repugnancy between the Mosaic Account of the Creation, and your Notions? Us. Pray let me see any Sense you can understand it in. Us. I am. Us. This I acknowledge. Us. What shall we make then of the Creation? Them. Pray consider what you are doing. Is it not evident, this Objection concludes equally against a Creation in any Sense;Us. I must acknowledge, the Difficulties you are concerned to clear, are such only as arise from the Non-existence of Matter, and are peculiar to that Notion. So far you are in the right. But I cannot by any means bring my self to think there is no such peculiar Repugnancy between the Creation and your Opinion: though indeed where to fix it, I do not distinctly know. Us. I confess, You, you have almost satisfied me in this Point of the Creation. Them. I would fain know why you are not quite satisfied. You tell me indeed of a Repugnancy between the Mosaic History and Immaterialism: But you know not where it lies. Is this reasonable, You? Can you expect I should solve a Difficulty without knowing what it is? But to pass by all that, would not a Man think you were assured there is no Repugnancy between the received Notions of Materialists and the inspired Writings? Us. And so I am. Them. Ought the Historical Part of Scripture to be understood in a plain obvious Sense, or in a Sense
which is metaphysical, and out of the way? Us. In the plain Sense, doubtless. Us. I cannot help thinking so. Them. And are not all Ideas, or Things perceived by Sense, to be denied a real Existence by the Doctrine of the Materialists? Us. This I have already acknowledged. Them. The Creation therefore, according to them, was not the Creation of Things sensible, which have only a relative Being, but of certain unknown Natures, which have an absolute Being, wherein Creation might terminate. Us. True. Us. I cannot contradict you. Us. I see you can assault me with my own Weapons. Us. I confess it seems to be as you say. Us. It is in vain to dispute about a Point so clear. I am content to refer it to your own Conscience. Are you not satisfied there is some peculiar Repugnancy between the Mosaic Account of the Creation, and your Notions? Us. Pray let me see any Sense you can understand it in. Us. I am. Us. This I acknowledge. Us. What shall we make then of the Creation? Them. Pray consider what you are doing. Is it not evident, this Objection concludes equally against a Creation in any Sense;Us. I must acknowledge, the Difficulties you are concerned to clear, are such only as arise from the Non-existence of Matter, and are peculiar to that Notion. So far you are in the right. But I cannot by any means bring my self to think there is no such peculiar Repugnancy between the Creation and your Opinion: though indeed where to fix it, I do not distinctly know. Us. I confess, You, you have almost satisfied me in this Point of the Creation. Them. I would fain know why you are not quite satisfied. You tell me indeed of a Repugnancy between the Mosaic History and Immaterialism: But you know not where it lies. Is this reasonable, You? Can you expect I should solve a Difficulty without knowing what it is? But to pass by all that, would not a Man think you were assured there is no Repugnancy between the received Notions of Materialists and the inspired Writings? Us. And so I am. Them. Ought the Historical Part of Scripture to be understood in a plain obvious Sense, or in a Sense which is metaphysical, and out of the way? Us. In the plain Sense, doubtless. Us. I cannot help thinking so. Them. And are not all Ideas, or Things perceived by Sense, to be denied a real Existence by the Doctrine of the Materialists? Us. This I have already acknowledged. Them. The Creation therefore, according to them, was not the Creation of Things sensible, which have only a relative Being, but of certain unknown Natures, which have an absolute Being, wherein Creation might terminate. Us. True. Us. I cannot contradict you. Us. I see you can assault me with my own Weapons. Us. I confess it seems to be as you say. Us. You have satisfied me, You. FINIS. 3 mARCH 2009