My Lord,
Your lordship's most humble
and most 充てるd servant,
George Berkeley

Preface

Introduction

2. The 原因（となる） of this is thought to be the obscurity of things, or the natural 証拠不十分 and imperfection of our understandings. It is said, the faculties we have are few, and those designed by nature for the support and 慰安 of life, and not to 侵入する into the inward essence and 憲法 of things. Besides, the mind of man 存在 finite, when it 扱う／治療するs of things which partake of infinity, it is not to be wondered at if it run into absurdities and contradictions, out of which it is impossible it should ever extricate itself, it 存在 of the nature of infinite not to be comprehended by that which is finite.

3. But, perhaps, we may be too 部分的な／不平等な to ourselves in placing the fault 初めは in our faculties, and not rather in the wrong use we make of them. It is a hard thing to suppose that 権利 deductions from true 原則s should ever end in consequences which cannot be 持続するd or made 一貫した. We should believe that God has dealt more bountifully with the sons of men than to give them a strong 願望（する） for that knowledge which he had placed やめる out of their reach. This were not agreeable to the wonted indulgent methods of Providence, which, whatever appetites it may have implanted in the creatures, doth usually furnish them with such means as, if rightly made use of, will not fail to 満足させる them. Upon the whole, I am inclined to think that the far greater part, if not all, of those difficulties which have hitherto amused philosophers, and 封鎖するd up the way to knowledge, are 完全に 借りがあるing to ourselves- that we have first raised a dust and then complain we cannot see.

4. My 目的 therefore is, to try if I can discover what those 原則s are which have introduced all that doubtfulness and 不確定, those absurdities and contradictions, into the several sects of philosophy; insomuch that the wisest men have thought our ignorance incurable, conceiving it to arise from the natural dulness and 制限 of our faculties. And surely it is a work 井戸／弁護士席 deserving our 苦痛s to make a strict 調査 関心ing the First 原則s of Human Knowledge, to 精査する and 診察する them on all 味方するs, 特に since there may be some grounds to 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う that those lets and difficulties, which stay and embarrass the mind in its search after truth, do not spring from any 不明瞭 and intricacy in the 反対するs, or natural defect in the understanding, so much as from 誤った 原則s which have been 主張するd on, and might have been 避けるd.

5. How difficult and discouraging soever this 試みる／企てる may seem, when I consider how many 広大な／多数の／重要な and 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の men have gone before me in the like designs, yet I am not without some hopes- upon the consideration that the largest 見解（をとる）s are not always the clearest, and that he who is short-sighted will be 強いるd to draw the 反対する nearer, and may, perhaps, by a の近くに and 狭くする 調査する, discern that which had escaped far better 注目する，もくろむs.

6. ーするために 準備する the mind of the reader for the easier conceiving what follows, it is proper to 前提 somewhat, by way of Introduction, 関心ing the nature and 乱用 of Language. But the unravelling this 事柄 leads me in some 手段 to 心配する my design, by taking notice of what seems to have had a 長，指導者 part in （判決などを）下すing 憶測 intricate and perplexed, and to have occasioned innumerable errors and difficulties in almost all parts of knowledge. And that is the opinion that the mind hath a 力／強力にする of でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるing abstract ideas or notions of things. He who is not a perfect stranger to the writings and 論争s of philosophers must needs 認める that no small part of them are spent about abstract ideas. These are in a more especial manner thought to be the 反対する of those sciences which go by the 指名する of Logic and Metaphysics, and of all that which passes under the notion of the most abstracted and sublime learning, in all which one shall 不十分な find any question 扱うd in such a manner as does not suppose their 存在 in the mind, and that it is 井戸／弁護士席 熟知させるd with them.

7. It is agreed on all 手渡すs that the 質s or 方式s of things do never really 存在する each of them apart by itself, and separated from all others, but are mixed, as it were, and blended together, several in the same 反対する. But, we are told, the mind 存在 able to consider each 質 singly, or abstracted from those other 質s with which it is 部隊d, does by that means でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる to itself abstract ideas. For example, there is perceived by sight an 反対する 延長するd, coloured, and moved: this mixed or 構内／化合物 idea the mind 解決するing into its simple, 選挙権を持つ／選挙人 parts, and 見解（をとる）ing each by itself, 排除的 of the 残り／休憩（する）, does でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる the abstract ideas of 拡張, colour, and 動議. Not that it is possible for colour or 動議 to 存在する without 拡張; but only that the mind can でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる to itself by abstraction the idea of colour 排除的 of 拡張, and of 動議 排除的 of both colour and 拡張.

8. Again, the mind having 観察するd that in the particular 拡張s perceived by sense there is something ありふれた and alike in all, and some other things peculiar, as this or that 人物／姿／数字 or magnitude, which distinguish them one from another; it considers apart or （テニスなどの）シングルス out by itself that which is ありふれた, making thereof a most abstract idea of 拡張, which is neither line, surface, nor solid, nor has any 人物／姿／数字 or magnitude, but is an idea 完全に prescinded from all these. So likewise the mind, by leaving out of the particular colours perceived by sense that which distinguishes them one from another, and 保持するing that only which is ありふれた to all, makes an idea of colour in abstract which is neither red, nor blue, nor white, nor any other determinate colour. And, in like manner, by considering 動議 abstractedly not only from the 団体／死体 moved, but likewise from the 人物／姿／数字 it 述べるs, and all particular directions and velocities, the abstract idea of 動議 is でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるd; which 平等に corresponds to all particular 動議s どれでも that may be perceived by sense.

9. And as the mind でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるs to itself abstract ideas of 質s or 方式s, so does it, by the same precision or mental 分離, 達成する abstract ideas of the more 構内／化合物d 存在s which 含む several coexistent 質s. For example, the mind having 観察するd that Peter, James, and John 似ている each other in 確かな ありふれた 協定s of 形態／調整 and other 質s, leaves out of the コンビナート／複合体 or 構内／化合物d idea it has of Peter, James, and any other particular man, that which is peculiar to each, 保持するing only what is ありふれた to all, and so makes an abstract idea wherein all the particulars 平等に partake- abstracting 完全に from and cutting off all those circumstances and differences which might 決定する it to any particular 存在. And after this manner it is said we come by the abstract idea of man, or, if you please, humanity, or human nature; wherein it is true there is 含むd colour, because there is no man but has some colour, but then it can be neither white, nor 黒人／ボイコット, nor any particular colour, because there is no one particular colour wherein all men partake. So likewise there is 含むd stature, but then it is neither tall stature, nor low stature, nor yet middle stature, but something abstracted from all these. And so of the 残り／休憩（する）. Moreover, their 存在 a 広大な／多数の／重要な variety of other creatures that partake in some parts, but not all, of the コンビナート／複合体 idea of man, the mind, leaving out those parts which are peculiar to men, and 保持するing those only which are ありふれた to all the living creatures, でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるs the idea of animal, which abstracts not only from all particular men, but also all birds, beasts, fishes, and insects. The 選挙権を持つ／選挙人 parts of the abstract idea of animal are 団体／死体, life, sense, and spontaneous 動議. By 団体／死体 is meant 団体／死体 without any particular 形態／調整 or 人物／姿／数字, there 存在 no one 形態／調整 or 人物／姿／数字 ありふれた to all animals, without covering, either of hair, or feathers, or 規模s, &c., nor yet naked: hair, feathers, 規模s, and nakedness 存在 the distinguishing 所有物／資産／財産s of particular animals, and for that 推論する／理由 left out of the abstract idea. Upon the same account the spontaneous 動議 must be neither walking, nor 飛行機で行くing, nor creeping; it is にもかかわらず a 動議, but what that 動議 is it is not 平易な to conceive.

10. Whether others have this wonderful faculty of abstracting their ideas, they best can tell: for myself, I find indeed I have a faculty of imagining, or 代表するing to myself, the ideas of those particular things I have perceived, and of variously 構内／化合物ing and dividing them. I can imagine a man with two 長，率いるs, or the upper parts of a man joined to the 団体／死体 of a horse. I can consider the 手渡す, the 注目する，もくろむ, the nose, each by itself abstracted or separated from the 残り／休憩（する） of the 団体／死体. But then whatever 手渡す or 注目する，もくろむ I imagine, it must have some particular 形態／調整 and colour. Likewise the idea of man that I でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる to myself must be either of a white, or a 黒人／ボイコット, or a tawny, a straight, or a crooked, a tall, or a low, or a middle-sized man. I cannot by any 成果／努力 of thought conceive the abstract idea above 述べるd. And it is 平等に impossible for me to form the abstract idea of 動議 際立った from the 団体／死体 moving, and which is neither swift nor slow, curvilinear nor rectilinear; and the like may be said of all other abstract general ideas どれでも. To be plain, I own myself able to abstract in one sense, as when I consider some particular parts or 質s separated from others, with which, though they are 部隊d in some 反対する, yet it is possible they may really 存在する without them. But I 否定する that I can abstract from one another, or conceive 分かれて, those 質s which it is impossible should 存在する so separated; or that I can でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる a general notion, by abstracting from particulars in the manner aforesaid- which last are the two proper acceptations of abstraction. And there are grounds to think most men will 認める themselves to be in my 事例／患者. The generality of men which are simple and 無学の never pretend to abstract notions. It is said they are difficult and not to be 達成するd without 苦痛s and 熟考する／考慮する; we may therefore reasonably 結論する that, if such there be, they are 限定するd only to the learned.

11. I proceed to 診察する what can be 申し立てられた／疑わしい in defence of the doctrine of abstraction, and try if I can discover what it is that inclines the men of 憶測 to embrace an opinion so remote from ありふれた sense as that seems to be. There has been a late deservedly esteemed philosopher who, no 疑問, has given it very much countenance, by seeming to think the having abstract general ideas is what puts the widest difference in point of understanding betwixt man and beast. "The having of general ideas," saith he, "is that which puts a perfect distinction betwixt man and brutes, and is an excellency which the faculties of brutes do by no means 達成する unto. For, it is evident we 観察する no foot-steps in them of making use of general 調印するs for 全世界の／万国共通の ideas; from which we have 推論する／理由 to imagine that they have not the faculty of abstracting, or making general ideas, since they have no use of words or any other general 調印するs." And a little after: "Therefore, I think, we may suppose that it is in this that the 種類 of brutes are 差別するd from men, and it is that proper difference wherein they are wholly separated, and which at last 広げるs to so wide a distance. For, if they have any ideas at all, and are not 明らかにする machines (as some would have them), we cannot 否定する them to have some 推論する／理由. It seems as evident to me that they do, some of them, in 確かな instances 推論する／理由 as that they have sense; but it is only in particular ideas, just as they receive them from their senses. They are the best of them tied up within those 狭くする bounds, and have not (as I think) the faculty to 大きくする them by any 肉親，親類d of abstraction."- Essay on Human Understanding, II. xi. 10 and 11. I readily agree with this learned author, that the faculties of brutes can by no means 達成する to abstraction. But then if this be made the distinguishing 所有物／資産／財産 of that sort of animals, I 恐れる a 広大な／多数の／重要な many of those that pass for men must be reckoned into their number. The 推論する／理由 that is here 割り当てるd why we have no grounds to think brutes have abstract general ideas is, that we 観察する in them no use of words or any other general 調印するs; which is built on this supposition- that the making use of words 暗示するs the having general ideas. From which it follows that men who use language are able to abstract or generalize their ideas. That this is the sense and arguing of the author will その上の appear by his answering the question he in another place puts: "Since all things that 存在する are only particulars, how come we by general 条件?" His answer is: "Words become general by 存在 made the 調印するs of general ideas."- Essay on Human Understanding, IV. iii. 6. But it seems that a word becomes general by 存在 made the 調印する, not of an abstract general idea, but of several particular ideas, any one of which it indifferently 示唆するs to the mind. For example, when it is said "the change of 動議 is 比例する to the impressed 軍隊," or that "whatever has 拡張 is divisible," these propositions are to be understood of 動議 and 拡張 in general; and にもかかわらず it will not follow that they 示唆する to my thoughts an idea of 動議 without a 団体／死体 moved, or any determinate direction and velocity, or that I must conceive an abstract general idea of 拡張, which is neither line, surface, nor solid, neither 広大な／多数の／重要な nor small, 黒人／ボイコット, white, nor red, nor of any other determinate colour. It is only 暗示するd that whatever particular 動議 I consider, whether it be swift or slow, perpendicular, 水平の, or oblique, or in whatever 反対する, the axiom 関心ing it 持つ／拘留するs 平等に true. As does the other of every particular 拡張, it 事柄s not whether line, surface, or solid, whether of this or that magnitude or 人物／姿／数字.

12. By 観察するing how ideas become general we may the better 裁判官 how words are made so. And here it is to be 公式文書，認めるd that I do not 否定する 絶対 there are general ideas, but only that there are any abstract general ideas; for, in the passages we have 引用するd wherein there is について言及する of general ideas, it is always supposed that they are formed by abstraction, after the manner 始める，決める 前へ／外へ in sections 8 and 9. Now, if we will 別館 a meaning to our words, and speak only of what we can conceive, I believe we shall 認める that an idea which, considered in itself, is particular, becomes general by 存在 made to 代表する or stand for all other particular ideas of the same sort. To make this plain by an example, suppose a geometrician is 論証するing the method of cutting a line in two equal parts. He draws, for instance, a 黒人／ボイコット line of an インチ in length: this, which in itself is a particular line, is にもかかわらず with regard to its signification general, since, as it is there used, it 代表するs all particular lines どれでも; so that what is 論証するd of it is 論証するd of all lines, or, in other words, of a line in general. And, as that particular line becomes general by 存在 made a 調印する, so the 指名する "line," which taken 絶対 is particular, by 存在 a 調印する is made general. And as the former 借りがあるs its generality not to its 存在 the 調印する of an abstract or general line, but of all particular 権利 lines that may かもしれない 存在する, so the latter must be thought to derive its generality from the same 原因（となる）, すなわち, the さまざまな particular lines which it indifferently denotes.

13. To give the reader a yet clearer 見解（をとる） of the nature of abstract ideas, and the uses they are thought necessary to, I shall 追加する one more passage out of the Essay on Human Understanding, (IV. vii. 9) which is as follows: "Abstract ideas are not so obvious or 平易な to children or the yet unexercised mind as particular ones. If they seem so to grown men it is only because by constant and familiar use they are made so. For, when we nicely 反映する upon them, we shall find that general ideas are fictions and contrivances of the mind, that carry difficulty with them, and do not so easily 申し込む／申し出 themselves as we are apt to imagine. For example, does it not 要求する some 苦痛s and 技術 to form the general idea of a triangle (which is yet 非，不，無 of the most abstract, 包括的な, and difficult); for it must be neither oblique nor rectangle, neither equilateral, equicrural, nor scalenon, but all and 非，不，無 of these at once? In 影響, it is something imperfect that cannot 存在する, an idea wherein some parts of several different and inconsistent ideas are put together. It is true the mind in this imperfect 明言する／公表する has need of such ideas, and makes all the haste to them it can, for the conveniency of communication and enlargement of knowledge, to both which it is 自然に very much inclined. But yet one has 推論する／理由 to 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う such ideas are 示すs of our imperfection. At least this is enough to show that the most abstract and general ideas are not those that the mind is first and most easily 熟知させるd with, nor such as its earliest knowledge is conversant about."- If any man has the faculty of でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるing in his mind such an idea of a triangle as is here 述べるd, it is in vain to pretend to 論争 him out of it, nor would I go about it. All I 願望（する） is that the reader would fully and certainly 知らせる himself whether he has such an idea or no. And this, methinks, can be no hard 仕事 for anyone to 成し遂げる. What more 平易な than for anyone to look a little into his own thoughts, and there try whether he has, or can att ain to have, an idea that shall correspond with the description that is here given of the general idea of a triangle, which is "neither oblique nor rectangle, equilateral, equicrural nor scalenon, but all and 非，不，無 of these at once?"

14. Much is here said of the difficulty that abstract ideas carry with them, and the 苦痛s and 技術 requisite to the forming them. And it is on all 手渡すs agreed that there is need of 広大な／多数の／重要な toil and 労働 of the mind, to emancipate our thoughts from particular 反対するs, and raise them to those sublime 憶測s that are conversant about abstract ideas. From all which the natural consequence should seem to be, that so difficult a thing as the forming abstract ideas was not necessary for communication, which is so 平易な and familiar to all sorts of men. But, we are told, if they seem obvious and 平易な to grown men, it is only because by constant and familiar use they are made so. Now, I would fain know at what time it is men are 雇うd in surmounting that difficulty, and furnishing themselves with those necessary helps for discourse. It cannot be when they are grown up, for then it seems they are not conscious of any such painstaking; it remains therefore to be the 商売／仕事 of their childhood. And surely the 広大な／多数の／重要な and multiplied 労働 of でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるing abstract notions will be 設立する a hard 仕事 for that tender age. Is it not a hard thing to imagine that a couple of children cannot prate together of their sugar-plums and 動揺させるs and the 残り／休憩（する） of their little trinkets, till they have first tacked together numberless inconsistencies, and so でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるd in their minds abstract general ideas, and 別館d them to every ありふれた 指名する they make use of?

15. Nor do I think them a whit more needful for the enlargement of knowledge than for communication. It is, I know, a point much 主張するd on, that all knowledge and demonstration are about 全世界の／万国共通の notions, to which I fully agree: but then it doth not appear to me that those notions are formed by abstraction in the manner 前提d - universality, so far as I can comprehend, not consisting in the 絶対の, 肯定的な nature or conception of anything, but in the relation it 耐えるs to the particulars 示す or 代表するd by it; by virtue whereof it is that things, 指名するs, or notions, 存在 in their own nature particular, are （判決などを）下すd 全世界の／万国共通の. Thus, when I 論証する any proposition 関心ing triangles, it is to be supposed that I have in 見解（をとる） the 全世界の／万国共通の idea of a triangle; which ought not to be understood as if I could でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる an idea of a triangle which was neither equilateral, nor scalenon, nor equicrural; but only that the particular triangle I consider, whether of this or that sort it 事柄s not, doth 平等に stand for and 代表する all rectilinear triangles どれでも, and is in that sense 全世界の／万国共通の. All which seems very plain and not to 含む any difficulty in it.

16. But here it will be 需要・要求するd, how we can know any proposition to be true of all particular triangles, except we have first seen it 論証するd of the abstract idea of a triangle which 平等に agrees to all? For, because a 所有物／資産／財産 may be 論証するd to agree to some one particular triangle, it will not thence follow that it 平等に belongs to any other triangle, which in all 尊敬（する）・点s is not the same with it. For example, having 論証するd that the three angles of an isosceles rectangular triangle are equal to two 権利 ones, I cannot therefore 結論する this affection agrees to all other triangles which have neither a 権利 angle nor two equal 味方するs. It seems therefore that, to be 確かな this proposition is universally true, we must either make a particular demonstration for every particular triangle, which is impossible, or once for all 論証する it of the abstract idea of a triangle, in which all the particulars do indifferently partake and by which they are all 平等に 代表するd. To which I answer, that, though the idea I have in 見解（をとる） whilst I make the demonstration be, for instance, that of an isosceles rectangular triangle whose 味方するs are of a determinate length, I may にもかかわらず be 確かな it 延長するs to all other rectilinear triangles, of what sort or bigness soever. And that because neither the 権利 angle, nor the equality, nor determinate length of the 味方するs are at all 関心d in the demonstration. It is true the diagram I have in 見解（をとる） 含むs all these particulars, but then there is not the least について言及する made of them in the proof of the proposition. It is not said the three angles are equal to two 権利 ones, because one of them is a 権利 angle, or because the 味方するs comprehending it are of the same length. Which 十分に shows that the 権利 angle might have been oblique, and the 味方するs unequal, and for all that the demonstration have held good. And for this 推論する／理由 it is that I 結論する that to be true of any obliquangular or scalenon which I had 論証するd of a particular 権利-angled equicrural triangle, and not because I 論証するd the proposition of the abstract idea of a triangle And here it must be 定評のある that a man may consider a 人物／姿／数字 単に as triangular, without …に出席するing to the particular 質s of the angles, or relations of the 味方するs. So far he may abstract; but this will never 証明する that he can でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる an abstract, general, inconsistent idea of a triangle. In like manner we may consider Peter so far 前へ／外へ as man, or so far 前へ／外へ as animal without でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるing the fore-について言及するd abstract idea, either of man or of animal, inasmuch as all that is perceived is not considered.

17. It were an endless 同様に as an useless thing to trace the Schoolmen, those 広大な／多数の／重要な masters of abstraction, through all the manifold inextricable 迷宮／迷路s of error and 論争 which their doctrine of abstract natures and notions seems to have led them into. What bickerings and 論争s, and what a learned dust have been raised about those 事柄s, and what mighty advantage has been from thence derived to mankind, are things at this day too 明確に known to need 存在 主張するd on. And it had been 井戸／弁護士席 if the ill 影響s of that doctrine were 限定するd to those only who make the most avowed profession of it. When men consider the 広大な／多数の／重要な 苦痛s, 産業, and parts that have for so many ages been laid out on the cultivation and 進歩 of the sciences, and that notwithstanding all this the far greater part of them remains 十分な of 不明瞭 and 不確定, and 論争s that are like never to have an end, and even those that are thought to be supported by the most （疑いを）晴らす and cogent demonstrations 含む／封じ込める in them paradoxes which are perfectly irreconcilable to the understandings of men, and that, taking all together, a very small 部分 of them does 供給（する） any real 利益 to mankind, さもなければ than by 存在 an innocent 転換 and amusement- I say the consideration of all this is apt to throw them into a despondency and perfect contempt of all 熟考する／考慮する. But this may perhaps 中止する upon a 見解（をとる） of the 誤った 原則s that have 得るd in the world, amongst all which there is 非，不，無, methinks, hath a more wide and 延長するd sway over the thoughts of 思索的な men than this of abstract general ideas.

18. I come now to consider the source of this 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing notion, and that seems to me to be language. And surely nothing of いっそう少なく extent than 推論する／理由 itself could have been the source of an opinion so universally received. The truth of this appears as from other 推論する／理由s so also from the plain 自白 of the ablest patrons of abstract ideas, who 認める that they are made ーするために 指名するing; from which it is a （疑いを）晴らす consequence that if there had been no such things as speech or 全世界の／万国共通の 調印するs there never had been any thought of abstraction. See III. vi. 39, and どこかよそで of the Essay on Human Understanding. Let us 診察する the manner wherein words have 与える／捧げるd to the origin of that mistake.- First then, it is thought that every 指名する has, or せねばならない have, one only 正確な and settled signification, which inclines men to think there are 確かな abstract, determinate ideas that 構成する the true and only 即座の signification of each general 指名する; and that it is by the 介入 of these abstract ideas that a general 指名する comes to signify any particular thing. 反して, in truth, there is no such thing as one 正確な and 限定された signification 別館d to any general 指名する, they all signifying indifferently a 広大な／多数の／重要な number of particular ideas. All which doth evidently follow from what has been already said, and will 明確に appear to anyone by a little reflexion. To this it will be 反対するd that every 指名する that has a 鮮明度／定義 is その為に 抑制するd to one 確かな signification. For example, a triangle is defined to be "a plain surface comprehended by three 権利 lines," by which that 指名する is 限られた／立憲的な to denote one 確かな idea and no other. To which I answer, that in the 鮮明度／定義 it is not said whether the surface be 広大な／多数の／重要な or small, 黒人／ボイコット or white, nor whether the 味方するs are long or short, equal or unequal, nor with what angles they are inclined to each other; in all which there may be 広大な／多数の／重要な variety, and その結果 there is no one settled idea which 限界s the signification of the word triangle. It is one thing for to keep a 指名する 絶えず to the same 鮮明度／定義, and another to make it stand everywhere for the same idea; the one is necessary, the other useless and impracticable.

19. But, to give a さらに先に account how words （機の）カム to produce the doctrine of abstract ideas, it must be 観察するd that it is a received opinion that language has no other end but the communicating our ideas, and that every 重要な 指名する stands for an idea. This 存在 so, and it 存在 withal 確かな that 指名するs which yet are not thought altogether insignificant do not always 示す out particular 考えられる ideas, it is straightway 結論するd that they stand for abstract notions. That there are many 指名するs in use amongst 思索的な men which do not always 示唆する to others determinate, particular ideas, or in truth anything at all, is what nobody will 否定する. And a little attention will discover that it is not necessary (even in the strictest reasonings) 重要な 指名するs which stand for ideas should, every time they are used, excite in the understanding the ideas they are made to stand for- in reading and discoursing, 指名するs 存在 for the most part used as letters are in Algebra, in which, though a particular 量 be 示すd by each letter, yet to proceed 権利 it is not requisite that in every step each letter 示唆する to your thoughts that particular 量 it was 任命するd to stand for.

20. Besides, the communicating of ideas 示すd by words is not the 長，指導者 and only end of language, as is 一般的に supposed. There are other ends, as the raising of some passion, the exciting to or deterring from an 活動／戦闘, the putting the mind in some particular disposition- to which the former is in many 事例／患者s barely subservient, and いつかs 完全に omitted, when these can be 得るd without it, as I think does not unfrequently happen in the familiar use of language. I entreat the reader to 反映する with himself, and see if it doth not often happen, either in 審理，公聴会 or reading a discourse, that the passions of 恐れる, love, 憎悪, 賞賛, disdain, and the like, arise すぐに in his mind upon the perception of 確かな words, without any ideas coming between. At first, indeed, the words might have occasioned ideas that were fitting to produce those emotions; but, if I mistake not, it will be 設立する that, when language is once grown familiar, the 審理，公聴会 of the sounds or sight of the characters is oft すぐに …に出席するd with those passions which at first were wont to be produced by the 介入 of ideas that are now やめる omitted. May we not, for example, be 影響する／感情d with the 約束 of a good thing, though we have not an idea of what it is? Or is not the 存在 脅すd with danger 十分な to excite a dread, though we think not of any particular evil likely to befal us, nor yet でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる to ourselves an idea of danger in abstract? If any one shall join ever so little reflexion of his own to what has been said, I believe that it will evidently appear to him that general 指名するs are often used in the propriety of language without the （衆議院の）議長's designing them for 示すs of ideas in his own, which he would have them raise in the mind of the hearer. Even proper 指名するs themselves do not seem always spoken with a design to bring into our 見解（をとる） the ideas of those individuals that are supposed to be 示すd by them. For example, when a schoolman tells me "Aristotle hath said it," all I conceive he means by it is to 配置する／処分する／したい気持ちにさせる me to embrace his opinion with the deference and submission which custom has 別館d to that 指名する. And this 影響 is often so 即時に produced in the minds of those who are accustomed to 辞職する their judgment to 当局 of that philosopher, as it is impossible any idea either of his person, writings, or 評判 should go before. Innumerable examples of this 肉親，親類d may be given, but why should I 主張する on those things which every one's experience will, I 疑問 not, plentifully 示唆する unto him?

21. We have, I think, shewn the impossibility of Abstract Ideas. We have considered what has been said for them by their ablest patrons; and 努力するd to show they are of no use for those ends to which they are thought necessary. And lastly, we have traced them to the source from whence they flow, which appears evidently to be language.- It cannot be 否定するd that words are of excellent use, in that by their means all that 在庫／株 of knowledge which has been 購入（する）d by the 共同の 労働s of inquisitive men in all ages and nations may be drawn into the 見解（をとる） and made the 所有／入手 of one 選び出す／独身 person. But at the same time it must be owned that most parts of knowledge have been strangely perplexed and darkened by the 乱用 of words, and general ways of speech wherein they are 配達するd. Since therefore words are so apt to 課す on the understanding, whatever ideas I consider, I shall endeavour to take them 明らかにする and naked into my 見解（をとる）, keeping out of my thoughts so far as I am able, those 指名するs which long and constant use hath so 厳密に 部隊d with them; from which I may 推定する／予想する to derive the に引き続いて advantages:

22. First, I shall be sure to get （疑いを）晴らす of all 論争s 純粋に 言葉の- the springing up of which 少しのd in almost all the sciences has been a main hindrance to the growth of true and sound knowledge. Secondly, this seems to be a sure way to extricate myself out of that 罰金 and subtle 逮捕する of abstract ideas which has so miserably perplexed and entangled the minds of men; and that with this peculiar circumstance, that by how much the finer and more curious was the wit of any man, by so much the deeper was he likely to be ensnared and faster held therein. Thirdly, so long as I 限定する my thoughts to my own ideas divested of words, I do not see how I can easily be mistaken. The 反対するs I consider, I 明確に and adequately know. I cannot be deceived in thinking I have an idea which I have not. It is not possible for me to imagine that any of my own ideas are alike or unlike that are not truly so. To discern the 協定s or 不一致s there are between my ideas, to see what ideas are 含むd in any 構内／化合物 idea and what not, there is nothing more requisite than an attentive perception of what passes in my own understanding.

23. But the attainment of all these advantages doth presuppose an entire deliverance from the deception of words, which I dare hardly 約束 myself; so difficult a thing it is to 解散させる an union so 早期に begun, and 確認するd by so long a habit as that betwixt words and ideas. Which difficulty seems to have been very much 増加するd by the doctrine of abstraction. For, so long as men thought abstract ideas were 別館d to their words, it doth not seem strange that they should use words for ideas- it 存在 設立する an impracticable thing to lay aside the word, and 保持する the abstract idea in the mind, which in itself was perfectly 信じられない. This seems to me the 主要な／長／主犯 原因（となる） why those men who have so emphatically recommended to others the laying aside all use of words in their meditations, and 熟視する／熟考するing their 明らかにする ideas, have yet failed to 成し遂げる it themselves. Of late many have been very sensible of the absurd opinions and insignificant 論争s which grow out of the 乱用 of words. And, ーするために 治療（薬） these evils, they advise 井戸／弁護士席, that we …に出席する to the ideas 示す, and draw off our attention from the words which signify them. But, how good soever this advice may be they have given others, it is plain they could not have a 予定 regard to it themselves, so long as they thought the only 即座の use of words was to signify ideas, and that the 即座の signification of every general 指名する was a determinate abstract idea.

24. But, these 存在 known to be mistakes, a man may with greater 緩和する 妨げる his 存在 課すd on by words. He that knows he has no other than particular ideas, will not puzzle himself in vain to find out and conceive the abstract idea 別館d to any 指名する. And he that knows 指名するs do not always stand for ideas will spare himself the 労働 of looking for ideas where there are 非，不，無 to be had. It were, therefore, to be wished that everyone would use his 最大の endeavours to 得る a （疑いを）晴らす 見解（をとる） of the ideas he would consider, separating from them all that dress and incumbrance of words which so much 与える／捧げる to blind the judgment and divide the attention. In vain do we 延長する our 見解（をとる） into the heavens and 調査する into the entrails of the earth, in vain do we 協議する the writings of learned men and trace the dark footsteps of antiquity- we need only draw the curtain of words, to 持つ／拘留する the fairest tree of knowledge, whose fruit is excellent, and within the reach of our 手渡す.

25. Unless we take care to （疑いを）晴らす the First 原則s of Knowledge from the embarras and delusion of words, we may make infinite reasonings upon them to no 目的; we may draw consequences from consequences, and be never the wiser. The さらに先に we go, we shall only lose ourselves the more irrecoverably, and be the deeper entangled in difficulties and mistakes. Whoever therefore designs to read the に引き続いて sheets, I entreat him to make my words the occasion of his own thinking, and endeavour to 達成する the same train of thoughts in reading that I had in 令状ing them. By this means it will be 平易な for him to discover the truth or falsity of what I say. He will be out of all danger of 存在 deceived by my words, and I do not see how he can be led into an error by considering his own naked, undisguised ideas.

A Treatise 関心ing The 原則s of Human Knowledge

2. But, besides all that endless variety of ideas or 反対するs of knowledge, there is likewise something which knows or perceives them, and 演習s divers 操作／手術s, as willing, imagining, remembering, about them. This perceiving, active 存在 is what I call mind, spirit, soul, or myself. By which words I do not denote any one of my ideas, but a thing 完全に 際立った from them, wherein, they 存在する, or, which is the same thing, whereby they are perceived - for the 存在 of an idea consists in 存在 perceived.

3. That neither our thoughts, nor passions, nor ideas formed by the imagination, 存在する without the mind, is what everybody will 許す. And it seems no いっそう少なく evident that the さまざまな sensations or ideas imprinted on the sense, however blended or 連合させるd together (that is, whatever 反対するs they compose), cannot 存在する さもなければ than in a mind perceiving them.- I think an intuitive knowledge may be 得るd of this by any one that shall …に出席する to what is meant by the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 存在するs, when 適用するd to sensible things. The （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する I 令状 on I say 存在するs, that is, I see and feel it; and if I were out of my 熟考する／考慮する I should say it 存在するd- meaning その為に that if I was in my 熟考する／考慮する I might perceive it, or that some other spirit 現実に does perceive it. There was an odour, that is, it was smelt; there was a sound, that is, it was heard; a colour or 人物／姿／数字, and it was perceived by sight or touch. This is all that I can understand by these and the like 表現s. For as to what is said of the 絶対の 存在 of unthinking things without any relation to their 存在 perceived, that seems perfectly unintelligible. Their esse is percepi, nor is it possible they should have any 存在 out of the minds or thinking things which perceive them.

4. It is indeed an opinion strangely 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible 反対するs, have an 存在, natural or real, 際立った from their 存在 perceived by the understanding. But, with how 広大な／多数の／重要な an 保証／確信 and acquiescence soever this 原則 may be entertained in the world, yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question may, if I mistake not, perceive it to 伴う／関わる a manifest contradiction. For, what are the fore-について言及するd 反対するs but the things we perceive by sense? and what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations? and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these, or any combination of them, should 存在する unperceived?

5. If we 完全に 診察する this tenet it will, perhaps, be 設立する at 底（に届く） to depend on the doctrine of abstract ideas. For can there be a nicer 緊張する of abstraction than to distinguish the 存在 of sensible 反対するs from their 存在 perceived, so as to conceive them 存在するing unperceived? Light and colours, heat and 冷淡な, 拡張 and 人物／姿／数字s- in a word the things we see and feel- what are they but so many sensations, notions, ideas, or impressions on the sense? and is it possible to separate, even in thought, any of these from perception? For my part, I might as easily divide a thing from itself. I may, indeed, divide in my thoughts, or conceive apart from each other, those things which, perhaps I never perceived by sense so divided. Thus, I imagine the trunk of a human 団体／死体 without the 四肢s, or conceive the smell of a rose without thinking on the rose itself. So far, I will not 否定する, I can abstract- if that may 適切に be called abstraction which 延長するs only to the conceiving 分かれて such 反対するs as it is possible may really 存在する or be 現実に perceived asunder. But my conceiving or imagining 力／強力にする does not 延長する beyond the 可能性 of real 存在 or perception. Hence, as it is impossible for me to see or feel anything without an actual sensation of that thing, so is it impossible for me to conceive in my thoughts any sensible thing or 反対する 際立った from the sensation or perception of it.

6. Some truths there are so 近づく and obvious to the mind that a man need only open his 注目する，もくろむs to see them. Such I take this important one to be, viz., that all the choir of heaven and furniture of the earth, in a word all those 団体／死体s which compose the mighty でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる of the world, have not any subsistence without a mind, that their 存在 is to be perceived or known; that その結果 so long as they are not 現実に perceived by me, or do not 存在する in my mind or that of any other created spirit, they must either have no 存在 at all, or else subsist in the mind of some Eternal Spirit- it 存在 perfectly unintelligible, and 伴う／関わるing all the absurdity of abstraction, to せいにする to any 選び出す／独身 part of them an 存在 独立した・無所属 of a spirit. To be 納得させるd of which, the reader need only 反映する, and try to separate in his own thoughts the 存在 of a sensible thing from its 存在 perceived.

7. From what has been said it follows there is not any other 実体 than Spirit, or that which perceives. But, for the fuller proof of this point, let it be considered the sensible 質s are colour, 人物／姿／数字, 動議, smell, taste, etc., i.e. the ideas perceived by sense. Now, for an idea to 存在する in an unperceiving thing is a manifest contradiction, for to have an idea is all one as to perceive; that therefore wherein colour, 人物／姿／数字, and the like 質s 存在する must perceive them; hence it is （疑いを）晴らす there can be no unthinking 実体 or substratum of those ideas.

8. But, say you, though the ideas themselves do not 存在する without the mind, yet there may be things like them, whereof they are copies or resemblances, which things 存在する without the mind in an unthinking 実体. I answer, an idea can be like nothing but an idea; a colour or 人物／姿／数字 can be like nothing but another colour or 人物／姿／数字. If we look but never so little into our thoughts, we shall find it impossible for us to conceive a likeness except only between our ideas. Again, I ask whether those supposed 初めのs or 外部の things, of which our ideas are the pictures or 代表s, be themselves perceivable or no? If they are, then they are ideas and we have 伸び（る）d our point; but if you say they are not, I 控訴，上告 to any one whether it be sense to 主張する a colour is like something which is invisible; hard or soft, like something which is intangible; and so of the 残り／休憩（する）.

9. Some there are who make a distinction betwixt 最初の／主要な and 第２位 質s. By the former they mean 拡張, 人物／姿／数字, 動議, 残り／休憩（する）, solidity or impenetrability, and number; by the latter they denote all other sensible 質s, as colours, sounds, tastes, and so 前へ／外へ. The ideas we have of these they 認める not to be the resemblances of anything 存在するing without the mind, or unperceived, but they will have our ideas of the 最初の／主要な 質s to be patterns or images of things which 存在する without the mind, in an unthinking 実体 which they call 事柄. By 事柄, therefore, we are to understand an inert, senseless 実体, in which 拡張, 人物／姿／数字, and 動議 do 現実に subsist. But it is evident from what we have already shown, that 拡張, 人物／姿／数字, and 動議 are only ideas 存在するing in the mind, and that an idea can be like nothing but another idea, and that その結果 neither they nor their archetypes can 存在する in an unperceiving 実体. Hence, it is plain that that the very notion of what is called 事柄 or corporeal 実体, 伴う／関わるs a contradiction in it.

10. They who 主張する that 人物／姿／数字, 動議, and the 残り／休憩（する） of the 最初の／主要な or 初めの 質s do 存在する without the mind in unthinking 実体s, do at the same time 認める that colours, sounds, heat 冷淡な, and suchlike 第２位 質s, do not- which they tell us are sensations 存在するing in the mind alone, that depend on and are occasioned by the different size, texture, and 動議 of the minute 粒子s of 事柄. This they take for an undoubted truth, which they can 論証する beyond all exception. Now, if it be 確かな that those 初めの 質s are inseparably 部隊d with the other sensible 質s, and not, even in thought, 有能な of 存在 abstracted from them, it plainly follows that they 存在する only in the mind. But I 願望（する） any one to 反映する and try whether he can, by any abstraction of thought, conceive the 拡張 and 動議 of a 団体／死体 without all other sensible 質s. For my own part, I see evidently that it is not in my 力／強力にする to でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる an idea of a 団体／死体 延長するd and moving, but I must withal give it some colour or other sensible 質 which is 定評のある to 存在する only in the mind. In short, 拡張, 人物／姿／数字, and 動議, abstracted from all other 質s, are 信じられない. Where therefore the other sensible 質s are, there must these be also, to wit, in the mind and nowhere else.

11. Again, 広大な／多数の／重要な and small, swift and slow, are 許すd to 存在する nowhere without the mind, 存在 完全に 親族, and changing as the でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる or position of the 組織／臓器s of sense 変化させるs. The 拡張 therefore which 存在するs without the mind is neither 広大な／多数の／重要な nor small, the 動議 neither swift nor slow, that is, they are nothing at all. But, say you, they are 拡張 in general, and 動議 in general: thus we see how much the tenet of 延長するd movable 実体s 存在するing without the mind depends on the strange doctrine of abstract ideas. And here I cannot but 発言／述べる how nearly the vague and indeterminate description of 事柄 or corporeal 実体, which the modern philosophers are run into by their own 原則s, 似ているs that 古風な and so much ridiculed notion of materia prima, to be met with in Aristotle and his 信奉者s. Without 拡張 solidity cannot be conceived; since therefore it has been shewn that 拡張 存在するs not in an unthinking 実体, the same must also be true of solidity.

12. That number is 完全に the creature of the mind, even though the other 質s be 許すd to 存在する without, will be evident to whoever considers that the same thing 耐えるs a different denomination of number as the mind 見解（をとる）s it with different 尊敬（する）・点s. Thus, the same 拡張 is one, or three, or thirty-six, （許可，名誉などを）与えるing as the mind considers it with 言及／関連 to a yard, a foot, or an インチ. Number is so visibly 親族, and 扶養家族 on men's understanding, that it is strange to think how any one should give it an 絶対の 存在 without the mind. We say one 調書をとる／予約する, one page, one line, etc.; all these are 平等に 部隊s, though some 含む／封じ込める several of the others. And in each instance, it is plain, the 部隊 relates to some particular combination of ideas arbitrarily put together by the mind.

13. まとまり I know some will have to be a simple or uncompounded idea, …を伴ってing all other ideas into the mind. That I have any such idea answering the word まとまり I do not find; and if I had, methinks I could not 行方不明になる finding it: on the contrary, it should be the most familiar to my understanding, since it is said to …を伴って all other ideas, and to be perceived by all the ways of sensation and reflexion. To say no more, it is an abstract idea.

14. I shall さらに先に 追加する, that, after the same manner as modern philosophers 証明する 確かな sensible 質s to have no 存在 in 事柄, or without the mind, the same thing may be likewise 証明するd of all other sensible 質s どれでも. Thus, for instance, it is said that heat and 冷淡な are affections only of the mind, and not at all patterns of real 存在s, 存在するing in the corporeal 実体s which excite them, for that the same 団体／死体 which appears 冷淡な to one 手渡す seems warm to another. Now, why may we not 同様に argue that 人物／姿／数字 and 拡張 are not patterns or resemblances of 質s 存在するing in 事柄, because to the same 注目する，もくろむ at different 駅／配置するs, or 注目する，もくろむs of a different texture at the same 駅／配置する, they appear さまざまな, and cannot therefore be the images of anything settled and determinate without the mind? Again, it is 証明するd that sweetness is not really in the sapid thing, because the thing remaining unaltered the sweetness is changed into bitter, as in 事例／患者 of a fever or さもなければ vitiated palate. Is it not as reasonable to say that 動議 is not without the mind, since if the succession of ideas in the mind become swifter, the 動議, it is 定評のある, shall appear slower without any alteration in any 外部の 反対する?

15. In short, let any one consider those arguments which are thought manifestly to 証明する that colours and taste 存在する only in the mind, and he shall find they may with equal 軍隊 be brought to 証明する the same thing of 拡張, 人物／姿／数字, and 動議. Though it must be 自白するd this method of arguing does not so much 証明する that there is no 拡張 or colour in an outward 反対する, as that we do not know by sense which is the true 拡張 or colour of the 反対する. But the arguments foregoing plainly shew it to be impossible that any colour or 拡張 at all, or other sensible 質 どれでも, should 存在する in an unthinking 支配する without the mind, or in truth, that there should be any such thing as an outward 反対する.

16. But let us 診察する a little the received opinion.- It is said 拡張 is a 方式 or 事故 of 事柄, and that 事柄 is the substratum that supports it. Now I 願望（する） that you would explain to me what is meant by 事柄's supporting 拡張. Say you, I have no idea of 事柄 and therefore cannot explain it. I answer, though you have no 肯定的な, yet, if you have any meaning at all, you must at least have a 親族 idea of 事柄; though you know not what it is, yet you must be supposed to know what relation it 耐えるs to 事故s, and what is meant by its supporting them. It is evident "support" cannot here be taken in its usual or literal sense- as when we say that 中心存在s support a building; in what sense therefore must it be taken?

17. If we 問い合わせ into what the most 正確な philosophers 宣言する themselves to mean by 構成要素 実体, we shall find them 認める they have no other meaning 別館d to those sounds but the idea of 存在 in general, together with the 親族 notion of its supporting 事故s. The general idea of 存在 appeareth to me the most abstract and 理解できない of all other; and as for its supporting 事故s, this, as we have just now 観察するd, cannot be understood in the ありふれた sense of those words; it must therefore be taken in some other sense, but what that is they do not explain. So that when I consider the two parts or 支店s which make the signification of the words 構成要素 実体, I am 納得させるd there is no 際立った meaning 別館d to them. But why should we trouble ourselves any さらに先に, in discussing this 構成要素 substratum or support of 人物／姿／数字 and 動議, and other sensible 質s? Does it not suppose they have an 存在 without the mind? And is not this a direct repugnancy, and altogether 信じられない?

18. But, though it were possible that solid, 人物／姿／数字d, movable 実体s may 存在する without the mind, corresponding to the ideas we have of 団体／死体s, yet how is it possible for us to know this? Either we must know it by sense or by 推論する／理由. As for our senses, by them we have the knowledge only of our sensations, ideas, or those things that are すぐに perceived by sense, call them what you will: but they do not 知らせる us that things 存在する without the mind, or unperceived, like to those which are perceived. This the materialists themselves 認める. It remains therefore that if we have any knowledge at all of 外部の things, it must be by 推論する／理由, inferring their 存在 from what is すぐに perceived by sense. But what 推論する／理由 can induce us to believe the 存在 of 団体／死体s without the mind, from what we perceive, since the very patrons of 事柄 themselves do not pretend there is any necessary connexion betwixt them and our ideas? I say it is 認めるd on all 手渡すs (and what happens in dreams, phrensies, and the like, puts it beyond 論争) that it is possible we might be 影響する／感情d with all the ideas we have now, though there were no 団体／死体s 存在するing without 似ているing them. Hence, it is evident the supposition of 外部の 団体／死体s is not necessary for the producing our ideas; since it is 認めるd they are produced いつかs, and might かもしれない be produced always in the same order, we see them in at 現在の, without their concurrence.

19. But, though we might かもしれない have all our sensations without them, yet perhaps it may be thought easier to conceive and explain the manner of their 生産／産物, by supposing 外部の 団体／死体s in their likeness rather than さもなければ; and so it might be at least probable there are such things as 団体／死体s that excite their ideas in our minds. But neither can this be said; for, though we give the materialists their 外部の 団体／死体s, they by their own 自白 are never the nearer knowing how our ideas are produced; since they own themselves unable to comprehend in what manner 団体／死体 can 行為／法令／行動する upon spirit, or how it is possible it should imprint any idea in the mind. Hence it is evident the 生産／産物 of ideas or sensations in our minds can be no 推論する／理由 why we should suppose 事柄 or corporeal 実体s, since that is 定評のある to remain 平等に inexplicable with or without this supposition. If therefore it were possible for 団体／死体s to 存在する without the mind, yet to 持つ／拘留する they do so, must needs be a very 不安定な opinion; since it is to suppose, without any 推論する／理由 at all, that God has created innumerable 存在s that are 完全に useless, and serve to no manner of 目的.

20. In short, if there were 外部の 団体／死体s, it is impossible we should ever come to know it; and if there were not, we might have the very same 推論する／理由s to think there were that we have now. Suppose - what no one can 否定する possible- an 知能 without the help of 外部の 団体／死体s, to be 影響する／感情d with the same train of sensations or ideas that you are, imprinted in the same order and with like vividness in his mind. I ask whether that 知能 hath not all the 推論する／理由 to believe the 存在 of corporeal 実体s, 代表するd by his ideas, and exciting them in his mind, that you can かもしれない have for believing the same thing? Of this there can be no question- which one consideration were enough to make any reasonable person 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う the strength of whatever arguments be may think himself to have, for the 存在 of 団体／死体s without the mind.

21. Were it necessary to 追加する any さらに先に proof against the 存在 of 事柄 after what has been said, I could instance several of those errors and difficulties (not to について言及する impieties) which have sprung from that tenet. It has occasioned numberless 論争s and 論争s in philosophy, and not a few of far greater moment in 宗教. But I shall not enter into the 詳細（に述べる） of them in this place, 同様に because I think arguments a posteriori are unnecessary for 確認するing what has been, if I mistake not, 十分に 論証するd a priori, as because I shall hereafter find occasion to speak somewhat of them.

22. I am afraid I have given 原因（となる） to think I am needlessly prolix in 扱うing this 支配する. For, to what 目的 is it to dilate on that which may be 論証するd with the 最大の 証拠 in a line or two, to any one that is 有能な of the least reflexion? It is but looking into your own thoughts, and so trying whether you can conceive it possible for a sound, or 人物／姿／数字, or 動議, or colour to 存在する without the mind or unperceived. This 平易な 裁判，公判 may perhaps make you see that what you 競う for is a downright contradiction. Insomuch that I am content to put the whole upon this 問題／発行する:- If you can but conceive it possible for one 延長するd movable 実体, or, in general, for any one idea, or anything like an idea, to 存在する さもなければ than in a mind perceiving it, I shall readily give up the 原因（となる）. And, as for all that compages of 外部の 団体／死体s you 競う for, I shall 認める you its 存在, though you cannot either give me any 推論する／理由 why you believe it 存在するs, or 割り当てる any use to it when it is supposed to 存在する. I say, the 明らかにする 可能性 of your opinions 存在 true shall pass for an argument that it is so.

23. But, say you, surely there is nothing easier than for me to imagine trees, for instance, in a park, or 調書をとる／予約するs 存在するing in a closet, and nobody by to perceive them. I answer, you may so, there is no difficulty in it; but what is all this, I beseech you, more than でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるing in your mind 確かな ideas which you call 調書をとる／予約するs and trees, and the same time omitting to でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる the idea of any one that may perceive them? But do not you yourself perceive or think of them all the while? This therefore is nothing to the 目的; it only shews you have the 力／強力にする of imagining or forming ideas in your mind: but it does not shew that you can conceive it possible the 反対するs of your thought may 存在する without the mind. To make out this, it is necessary that you conceive them 存在するing unconceived or unthought of, which is a manifest repugnancy. When we do our 最大の to conceive the 存在 of 外部の 団体／死体s, we are all the while only 熟視する／熟考するing our own ideas. But the mind taking no notice of itself, is deluded to think it can and does conceive 団体／死体s 存在するing unthought of or without the mind, though at the same time they are apprehended by or 存在する in itself. A little attention will discover to any one the truth and 証拠 of what is here said, and make it unnecessary to 主張する on any other proofs against the 存在 of 構成要素 実体.

24. It is very obvious, upon the least 調査 into our thoughts, to know whether it is possible for us to understand what is meant by the 絶対の 存在 of sensible 反対するs in themselves, or without the mind. To me it is evident those words 示す out either a direct contradiction, or else nothing at all. And to 納得させる others of this, I know no readier or fairer way than to entreat they would calmly …に出席する to their own thoughts; and if by this attention the emptiness or repugnancy of those 表現s does appear, surely nothing more is requisite for the 有罪の判決. It is on this therefore that I 主張する, to wit, that the 絶対の 存在 of unthinking things are words without a meaning, or which 含む a contradiction. This is what I repeat and inculcate, and 真面目に recommend to the attentive thoughts of the reader.

25. All our ideas, sensations, notions, or the things which we perceive, by どれでも 指名するs they may be distinguished, are visibly inactive- there is nothing of 力／強力にする or 機関 含むd in them. So that one idea or 反対する of thought cannot produce or make any alteration in another. To be 満足させるd of the truth of this, there is nothing else requisite but a 明らかにする 観察 of our ideas. For, since they and every part of them 存在する only in the mind, it follows that there is nothing in them but what is perceived: but whoever shall …に出席する to his ideas, whether of sense or reflexion, will not perceive in them any 力／強力にする or activity; there is, therefore, no such thing 含む／封じ込めるd in them. A little attention will discover to us that the very 存在 of an idea 暗示するs passiveness and inertness in it, insomuch that it is impossible for an idea to do anything, or, 厳密に speaking, to be the 原因（となる） of anything: neither can it be the resemblance or pattern of any active 存在, as is evident from sect. 8. Whence it plainly follows that 拡張, 人物／姿／数字, and 動議 cannot be the 原因（となる） of our sensations. To say, therefore, that these are the 影響s of 力／強力にするs resulting from the configuration, number, 動議, and size of 血球s, must certainly be 誤った.

26. We perceive a continual succession of ideas, some are もう一度 excited, others are changed or 全く disappear. There is therefore some 原因（となる） of these ideas, whereon they depend, and which produces and changes them. That this 原因（となる） cannot be any 質 or idea or combination of ideas, is （疑いを）晴らす from the 先行する section. I must therefore be a 実体; but it has been shewn that there is no corporeal or 構成要素 実体: it remains therefore that the 原因（となる） of ideas is an incorporeal active 実体 or Spirit.

27. A spirit is one simple, 分割されない, active 存在- as it perceives ideas it is called the understanding, and as it produces or さもなければ operates about them it is called the will. Hence there can be no idea formed of a soul or spirit; for all ideas whatever, 存在 passive and inert (vide sect. 25), they cannot 代表する unto us, by way of image or likeness, that which 行為／法令／行動するs. A little attention will make it plain to any one, that to have an idea which shall be like that active 原則 of 動議 and change of ideas is 絶対 impossible. Such is the nature of spirit, or that which 行為／法令／行動するs, that it cannot be of itself perceived, but only by the 影響s which it produceth. If any man shall 疑問 of the truth of what is here 配達するd, let him but 反映する and try if he can でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる the idea of any 力／強力にする or active 存在, and whether he has ideas of two 主要な／長／主犯 力／強力にするs, 示すd by the 指名するs will and understanding, 際立った from each other 同様に as from a third idea of 実体 or 存在 in general, with a 親族 notion of its supporting or 存在 the 支配する of the aforesaid 力／強力にするs- which is 示す by the 指名する soul or spirit. This is what some 持つ／拘留する; but, so far as I can see, the words will, soul, spirit, do not stand for different ideas, or, in truth, for any idea at all, but for something which is very different from ideas, and which, 存在 an スパイ／執行官, cannot be like unto, or 代表するd by, any idea どれでも. Though it must be owned at the same time that we have some notion of soul, spirit, and the 操作／手術s of the mind: such as willing, loving, hating- inasmuch as we know or understand the meaning of these words.

28. I find I can excite ideas in my mind at 楽しみ, and 変化させる and 転換 the scene as oft as I think fit. It is no more than willing, and straightway this or that idea arises in my fancy; and by the same 力／強力にする it is obliterated and makes way for another. This making and unmaking of ideas doth very 適切に denominate the mind active. Thus much is 確かな and grounded on experience; but when we think of unthinking スパイ／執行官s or of exciting ideas 排除的 of volition, we only amuse ourselves with words.

29. But, whatever 力／強力にする I may have over my own thoughts, I find the ideas 現実に perceived by Sense have not a like dependence on my will. When in 幅の広い daylight I open my 注目する，もくろむs, it is not in my 力／強力にする to choose whether I shall see or no, or to 決定する what particular 反対するs shall 現在の themselves to my 見解（をとる）; and so likewise as to the 審理，公聴会 and other senses; the ideas imprinted on them are not creatures of my will. There is therefore some other Will or Spirit that produces them.

30. The ideas of Sense are more strong, lively, and 際立った than those of the imagination; they have likewise a steadiness, order, and coherence, and are not excited at 無作為の, as those which are the 影響s of human wills often are, but in a 正規の／正選手 train or series, the admirable connexion whereof 十分に 証言するs the 知恵 and benevolence of its Author. Now the 始める，決める 支配するs or 設立するd methods wherein the Mind we depend on excites in us the ideas of sense, are called the 法律s of nature; and these we learn by experience, which teaches us that such and such ideas are …に出席するd with such and such other ideas, in the ordinary course of things.

31. This gives us a sort of foresight which enables us to 規制する our 活動／戦闘s for the 利益 of life. And without this we should be eternally at a loss; we could not know how to 行為／法令／行動する anything that might procure us the least 楽しみ, or 除去する the least 苦痛 of sense. That food nourishes, sleep refreshes, and 解雇する／砲火／射撃 warms us; that to （種を）蒔く in the seed-time is the way to 得る in the 収穫; and in general that to 得る such or such ends, such or such means are 役立つ- all this we know, not by discovering any necessary connexion between our ideas, but only by the 観察 of the settled 法律s of nature, without which we should be all in 不確定 and 混乱, and a grown man no more know how to manage himself in the 事件／事情／状勢s of life than an 幼児 just born.

32. And yet this 一貫した uniform working, which so evidently 陳列する，発揮するs the goodness and 知恵 of that 治める／統治するing Spirit whose Will 構成するs the 法律s of nature, is so far from 主要な our thoughts to Him, that it rather sends them wandering after second 原因（となる）s. For, when we perceive 確かな ideas of Sense 絶えず followed by other ideas and we know this is not of our own doing, we forthwith せいにする 力／強力にする and 機関 to the ideas themselves, and make one the 原因（となる） of another, than which nothing can be more absurd and unintelligible. Thus, for example, having 観察するd that when we perceive by sight a 確かな 一連の会議、交渉／完成する luminous 人物／姿／数字 we at the same time perceive by touch the idea or sensation called heat, we do from thence 結論する the sun to be the 原因（となる） of heat. And in like manner perceiving the 動議 and 衝突／不一致 of 団体／死体s to be …に出席するd with sound, we are inclined to think the latter the 影響 of the former.

33. The ideas imprinted on the Senses by the Author of nature are called real things; and those excited in the imagination 存在 いっそう少なく 正規の／正選手, vivid, and constant, are more 適切に 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語d ideas, or images of things, which they copy and 代表する. But then our sensations, be they never so vivid and 際立った, are にもかかわらず ideas, that is, they 存在する in the mind, or are perceived by it, as truly as the ideas of its own でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるing. The ideas of Sense are 許すd to have more reality in them, that is, to be more strong, 整然とした, and coherent than the creatures of the mind; but this is no argument that they 存在する without the mind. They are also いっそう少なく 扶養家族 on the spirit, or thinking 実体 which perceives them, in that they are excited by the will of another and more powerful spirit; yet still they are ideas, and certainly no idea, whether faint or strong, can 存在する さもなければ than in a mind perceiving it.

34. Before we proceed any さらに先に it is necessary we spend some time in answering 反対s which may probably be made against the 原則s we have hitherto laid 負かす／撃墜する. In doing of which, if I seem too prolix to those of quick 逮捕s, I hope it may be 容赦d, since all men do not 平等に apprehend things of this nature, and I am willing to be understood by every one.

First, then, it will be 反対するd that by the foregoing 原則s all that is real and 相当な in nature is banished out of the world, and instead thereof a chimerical 計画／陰謀 of ideas takes place. All things that 存在する, 存在する only in the mind, that is, they are 純粋に notional. What therefore becomes of the sun, moon and 星／主役にするs? What must we think of houses, rivers, mountains, trees, 石／投石するs; nay, even of our own 団体／死体s? Are all these but so many chimeras and illusions on the fancy? To all which, and whatever else of the same sort may be 反対するd, I answer, that by the 原則s 前提d we are not 奪うd of any one thing in nature. Whatever we see, feel, hear, or anywise conceive or understand remains as 安全な・保証する as ever, and is as real as ever. There is a rerum natura, and the distinction between realities and chimeras 保持するs its 十分な 軍隊. This is evident from sect. 29, 30, and 33, where we have shewn what is meant by real things in 対立 to chimeras or ideas of our own でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるing; but then they both 平等に 存在する in the mind, and in that sense they are alike ideas.

35. I do not argue against the 存在 of any one thing that we can apprehend either by sense or reflexion. That the things I see with my 注目する，もくろむs and touch with my 手渡すs do 存在する, really 存在する, I make not the least question. The only thing whose 存在 we 否定する is that which philosophers call 事柄 or corporeal 実体. And in doing of this there is no 損失 done to the 残り／休憩（する） of mankind, who, I dare say, will never 行方不明になる it. The Atheist indeed will want the colour of an empty 指名する to support his impiety; and the Philosophers may かもしれない find they have lost a 広大な／多数の／重要な 扱う for trifling and disputation.

36. If any man thinks this detracts from the 存在 or reality of things, he is very far from understanding what hath been 前提d in the plainest 条件 I could think of. Take here an abstract of what has been said:- There are spiritual 実体s, minds, or human souls, which will or excite ideas in themselves at 楽しみ; but these are faint, weak, and unsteady in 尊敬（する）・点 of others they perceive by sense - which, 存在 impressed upon them によれば 確かな 支配するs or 法律s of nature, speak themselves the 影響s of a mind more powerful and wise than human spirits. These latter are said to have more reality in them than the former:- by which is meant that they are more 影響する／感情ing, 整然とした, and 際立った, and that they are not fictions of the mind perceiving them. And in this sense the sun that I see by day is the real sun, and that which I imagine by night is the idea of the former. In the sense here given of reality it is evident that every vegetable, 星／主役にする, mineral, and in general each part of the mundane system, is as much a real 存在 by our 原則s as by any other. Whether others mean anything by the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 reality different from what I do, I entreat them to look into their own thoughts and see.

37. I will be 勧めるd that thus much at least is true, to wit, that we take away all corporeal 実体s. To this my answer is, that if the word 実体 be taken in the vulgar sense- for a combination of sensible 質s, such as 拡張, solidity, 負わせる, and the like- this we cannot be （刑事）被告 of taking away: but if it be taken in a philosophic sense- for the support of 事故s or 質s without the mind- then indeed I 認める that we take it away, if one may be said to take away that which never had any 存在, not even in the imagination.

38. But after all, say you, it sounds very 厳しい to say we eat and drink ideas, and are 着せる／賦与するd with ideas. I 認める it does so- the word idea not 存在 used in ありふれた discourse to signify the several combinations of sensible 質s which are called things; and it is 確かな that any 表現 which 変化させるs from the familiar use of language will seem 厳しい and ridiculous. But this doth not 関心 the truth of the proposition, which in other words is no more than to say, we are fed and 着せる／賦与するd with those things which we perceive すぐに by our senses. The hardness or softness, the colour, taste, warmth, 人物／姿／数字, or suchlike 質s, which 連合させるd together 構成する the several sorts of victuals and apparel, have been shewn to 存在する only in the mind that perceives them; and this is all that is meant by calling them ideas; which word if it was as ordinarily used as thing, would sound no harsher nor more ridiculous than it. I am not for 論争ing about the propriety, but the truth of the 表現. If therefore you agree with me that we eat and drink and are 覆う？ with the 即座の 反対するs of sense, which cannot 存在する unperceived or without the mind, I shall readily 認める it is more proper or conformable to custom that they should be called things rather than ideas.

39. If it be 需要・要求するd why I make use of the word idea, and do not rather in 同意／服従 with custom call them things; I answer, I do it for two 推論する／理由s:- first, because the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 thing in contra-distinction to idea, is 一般に supposed to denote somewhat 存在するing without the mind; secondly, because thing hath a more 包括的な signification than idea, 含むing spirit or thinking things 同様に as ideas. Since therefore the 反対するs of sense 存在する only in the mind, and are withal thoughtless and inactive, I chose to 示す them by the word idea, which 暗示するs those 所有物／資産／財産s.

40. But, say what we can, some one perhaps may be apt to reply, he will still believe his senses, and never 苦しむ any arguments, how plausible soever, to 勝つ／広く一帯に広がる over the certainty of them. Be it so; 主張する the 証拠 of sense as high as you please, we are willing to do the same. That what I see, hear, and feel doth 存在する, that is to say, is perceived by me, I no more 疑問 than I do of my own 存在. But I do not see how the 証言 of sense can be 申し立てられた／疑わしい as a proof for the 存在 of anything which is not perceived by sense. We are not for having any man turn sceptic and disbelieve his senses; on the contrary, we give them all the 強調する／ストレス and 保証／確信 imaginable; nor are there any 原則s more opposite to Scepticism than those we have laid 負かす／撃墜する, as shall be hereafter 明確に shewn.

41. Secondly, it will be 反対するd that there is a 広大な／多数の／重要な difference betwixt real 解雇する／砲火／射撃 for instance, and the idea of 解雇する／砲火／射撃, betwixt dreaming or imagining oneself burnt, and 現実に 存在 so: if you 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う it to be only the idea of 解雇する／砲火／射撃 which you see, do but put your 手渡す into it and you will be 納得させるd with a 証言，証人／目撃する. This and the like may be 勧めるd in 対立 to our tenets. To all which the answer is evident from what hath been already said; and I shall only 追加する in this place, that if real 解雇する／砲火／射撃 be very different from the idea of 解雇する／砲火／射撃, so also is the real 苦痛 that it occasions very different from the idea of the same 苦痛, and yet nobody will pretend that real 苦痛 either is, or can かもしれない be, in an unperceiving thing, or without the mind, any more than its idea.

42. Thirdly, it will be 反対するd that we see things 現実に without or at distance from us, and which その結果 do not 存在する in the mind; it 存在 absurd that those things which are seen at the distance of several miles should be as 近づく to us as our own thoughts. In answer to this, I 願望（する） it may be considered that in a dream we do oft perceive things as 存在するing at a 広大な／多数の／重要な distance off, and yet for all that, those things are 定評のある to have their 存在 only in the mind.

43. But, for the fuller （疑いを）晴らすing of this point, it may be 価値（がある） while to consider how it is that we perceive distance and things placed at a distance by sight. For, that we should in truth see 外部の space, and 団体／死体s 現実に 存在するing in it, some nearer, others さらに先に off, seems to carry with it some 対立 to what hath been said of their 存在するing nowhere without the mind. The consideration of this difficulty it was that gave birth to my "Essay に向かって a New Theory of 見通し," which was published not long since, wherein it is shewn that distance or outness is neither すぐに of itself perceived by sight, nor yet apprehended or 裁判官d of by lines and angles, or anything that hath a necessary connexion with it; but that it is only 示唆するd to our thoughts by 確かな 明白な ideas and sensations …に出席するing 見通し, which in their own nature have no manner of similitude or relation either with distance or things placed at a distance; but, by a connexion taught us by experience, they come to signify and 示唆する them to us, after the same manner that words of any language 示唆する the ideas they are made to stand for; insomuch that a man born blind and afterwards made to see, would not, at first sight, think the things he saw to be without his mind, or at any distance from him. See sect. 41 of the fore-について言及するd treatise.

44. The ideas of sight and touch make two 種類 完全に 際立った and heterogeneous. The former are 示すs and prognostics of the latter. That the proper 反対するs of sight neither 存在する without mind, nor are the images of 外部の things, was shewn even in that treatise. Though throughout the same the contrary be supposed true of 有形の 反対するs- not that to suppose that vulgar error was necessary for 設立するing the notion therein laid 負かす／撃墜する, but because it was beside my 目的 to 診察する and 反駁する it in a discourse 関心ing 見通し. So that in strict truth the ideas of sight, when we apprehend by them distance and things placed at a distance, do not 示唆する or 示す out to us things 現実に 存在するing at a distance, but only admonish us what ideas of touch will be imprinted in our minds at such and such distances of time, and in consequence of such or such 活動／戦闘s. It is, I say, evident from what has been said in the foregoing parts of this Treatise, and in sect. 147 and どこかよそで of the Essay 関心ing 見通し, that 明白な ideas are the Language whereby the 治める／統治するing Spirit on whom we depend 知らせるs us what 有形の ideas he is about to imprint upon us, in 事例／患者 we excite this or that 動議 in our own 団体／死体s. But for a fuller （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） in this point I 言及する to the Essay itself.

45. Fourthly, it will be 反対するd that from the foregoing 原則s it follows things are every moment 絶滅するd and created もう一度. The 反対するs of sense 存在する only when they are perceived; the trees therefore are in the garden, or the 議長，司会を務めるs in the parlour, no longer than while there is somebody by to perceive them. Upon shutting my 注目する，もくろむs all the furniture in the room is 減ずるd to nothing, and barely upon 開始 them it is again created. In answer to all which, I 言及する the reader to what has been said in sect. 3, 4, &c., and 願望（する） he will consider whether he means anything by the actual 存在 of an idea 際立った from its 存在 perceived. For my part, after the nicest 調査 I could make, I am not able to discover that anything else is meant by those words; and I once more entreat the reader to sound his own thoughts, and not 苦しむ himself to be 課すd on by words. If he can conceive it possible either for his ideas or their archetypes to 存在する without 存在 perceived, then I give up the 原因（となる）; but if he cannot, he will 認める it is 不当な for him to stand up in defence of he knows not what, and pretend to 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 on me as an absurdity the not assenting to those propositions which at 底（に届く） have no meaning in them.

46. It will not be amiss to 観察する how far the received 原則s of philosophy are themselves chargeable with those pretended absurdities. It is thought strangely absurd that upon の近くにing my eyelids all the 明白な 反対するs around me should be 減ずるd to nothing; and yet is not this what philosophers 一般的に 認める, when they agree on all 手渡すs that light and colours, which alone are the proper and 即座の 反対するs of sight, are mere sensations that 存在する no longer than they are perceived? Again, it may to some perhaps seem very incredible that things should be every moment creating, yet this very notion is 一般的に taught in the schools. For the Schoolmen, though they 認める the 存在 of 事柄, and that the whole mundane fabric is でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるd out of it, are にもかかわらず of opinion that it cannot subsist without the divine 自然保護, which by them is expounded to be a continual 創造.

47. さらに先に, a little thought will discover to us that though we 許す the 存在 of 事柄 or corporeal 実体, yet it will unavoidably follow, from the 原則s which are now 一般に 認める, that the particular 団体／死体s, of what 肉親，親類d soever, do 非，不，無 of them 存在する whilst they are not perceived. For, it is evident from sect. II and the に引き続いて sections, that the 事柄 philosophers 競う for is an 理解できない somewhat, which hath 非，不，無 of those particular 質s whereby the 団体／死体s 落ちるing under our senses are distinguished one from another. But, to make this more plain, it must be 発言／述べるd that the infinite divisibility of 事柄 is now universally 許すd, at least by the most 認可するd and かなりの philosophers, who on the received 原則s 論証する it beyond all exception. Hence, it follows there is an infinite number of parts in each 粒子 of 事柄 which are not perceived by sense. The 推論する／理由 therefore that any particular 団体／死体 seems to be of a finite magnitude, or 展示（する）s only a finite number of parts to sense, is, not because it 含む／封じ込めるs no more, since in itself it 含む／封じ込めるs an infinite number of parts, but because the sense is not 激烈な／緊急の enough to discern them. In 割合 therefore as the sense is （判決などを）下すd more 激烈な／緊急の, it perceives a greater number of parts in the 反対する, that is, the 反対する appears greater, and its 人物／姿／数字 変化させるs, those parts in its extremities which were before unperceivable appearing now to bound it in very different lines and angles from those perceived by an obtuser sense. And at length, after さまざまな changes of size and 形態／調整, when the sense becomes infinitely 激烈な／緊急の the 団体／死体 shall seem infinite. During all which there is no alteration in the 団体／死体, but only in the sense. Each 団体／死体 therefore, considered in itself, is infinitely 延長するd, and その結果 無効の of all 形態／調整 or 人物／姿／数字. From which it follows that, though we should 認める the 存在 of 事柄 to be never so 確かな , yet it is withal as 確かな , the materialists themselves are by their own 原則s 軍隊d to 認める, that neither the particular 団体／死体s perceived by sense, nor anything like them, 存在するs without the mind. 事柄, I say, and each 粒子 thereof, is によれば them infinite and shapeless, and it is the mind that でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるs all that variety of 団体／死体s which compose the 明白な world, any one whereof does not 存在する longer than it is perceived.

48. If we consider it, the 反対 提案するd in sect. 45 will not be 設立する reasonably 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金d on the 原則s we have 前提d, so as in truth to make any 反対 at all against our notions. For, though we 持つ／拘留する indeed the 反対するs of sense to be nothing else but ideas which cannot 存在する unperceived; yet we may not hence 結論する they have no 存在 except only while they are perceived by us, since there may be some other spirit that perceives them though we do not. Wherever 団体／死体s are said to have no 存在 without the mind, I would not be understood to mean this or that particular mind, but all minds どれでも. It does not therefore follow from the foregoing 原則s that 団体／死体s are 絶滅するd and created every moment, or 存在する not at all during the intervals between our perception of them.

49. Fifthly, it may perhaps be 反対するd that if 拡張 and 人物／姿／数字 存在する only in the mind, it follows that the mind is 延長するd and 人物／姿／数字d; since 拡張 is a 方式 or せいにする which (to speak with the schools) is predicated of the 支配する in which it 存在するs. I answer, those 質s are in the mind only as they are perceived by it- that is, not by way of 方式 or せいにする, but only by way of idea; and it no more follows the soul or mind is 延長するd, because 拡張 存在するs in it alone, than it does that it is red or blue, because those colours are on all 手渡すs 定評のある to 存在する in it, and nowhere else. As to what philosophers say of 支配する and 方式, that seems very groundless and unintelligible. For instance, in this proposition "a die is hard, 延長するd, and square," they will have it that the word die denotes a 支配する or 実体, 際立った from the hardness, 拡張, and 人物／姿／数字 which are predicated of it, and in which they 存在する. This I cannot comprehend: to me a die seems to be nothing 際立った from those things which are 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語d its 方式s or 事故s. And, to say a die is hard, 延長するd, and square is not to せいにする those 質s to a 支配する 際立った from and supporting them, but only an explication of the meaning of the word die.

50. Sixthly, you will say there have been a 広大な／多数の／重要な many things explained by 事柄 and 動議; take away these and you destroy the whole corpuscular philosophy, and 土台を崩す those mechanical 原則s which have been 適用するd with so much success to account for the phenomena. In short, whatever 前進するs have been made, either by 古代の or modern philosophers, in the 熟考する／考慮する of nature do all proceed on the supposition that corporeal 実体 or 事柄 doth really 存在する. To this I answer that there is not any one 現象 explained on that supposition which may not 同様に be explained without it, as might easily be made appear by an induction of particulars. To explain the phenomena, is all one as to shew why, upon such and such occasions, we are 影響する／感情d with such and such ideas. But how 事柄 should operate on a Spirit, or produce any idea in it, is what no philosopher will pretend to explain; it is therefore evident there can be no use of 事柄 in natural philosophy. Besides, they who 試みる／企てる to account for things do it not by corporeal 実体, but by 人物／姿／数字, 動議, and other 質s, which are in truth no more than mere ideas, and, therefore, cannot be the 原因（となる） of anything, as hath been already shewn. See sect. 25.

51. Seventhly, it will upon this be 需要・要求するd whether it does not seem absurd to take away natural 原因（となる）s, and ascribe everything to the 即座の 操作／手術 of Spirits? We must no longer say upon these 原則s that 解雇する／砲火／射撃 heats, or water 冷静な／正味のs, but that a Spirit heats, and so 前へ／外へ. Would not a man be deservedly laughed at, who should talk after this manner? I answer, he would so; in such things we せねばならない "think with the learned, and speak with the vulgar." They who to demonstration are 納得させるd of the truth of the Copernican system do にもかかわらず say "the sun rises," "the sun 始める，決めるs," or "comes to the meridian"; and if they 影響する／感情d a contrary style in ありふれた talk it would without 疑問 appear very ridiculous. A little reflexion on what is here said will make it manifest that the ありふれた use of language would receive no manner of alteration or 騒動 from the admission of our tenets.

52. In the ordinary 事件／事情／状勢s of life, any phrases may be 保持するd, so long as they excite in us proper 感情s, or dispositions to 行為／法令／行動する in such a manner as is necessary for our 井戸／弁護士席-存在, how 誤った soever they may be if taken in a strict and 思索的な sense. Nay, this is 避けられない, since, propriety 存在 規制するd by custom, language is ふさわしい to the received opinions, which are not always the truest. Hence it is impossible, even in the most rigid, philosophic reasonings, so far to alter the bent and genius of the tongue we speak, as never to give a 扱う for cavillers to pretend difficulties and inconsistencies. But, a fair and ingenuous reader will collect the sense from the 範囲 and tenor and connexion of a discourse, making allowances for those 不確かの 方式s of speech which use has made 必然的な.

53. As to the opinion that there are no Corporeal 原因（となる）s, this has been heretofore 持続するd by some of the Schoolmen, as it is of late by others の中で the modern philosophers, who though they 許す 事柄 to 存在する, yet will have God alone to be the 即座の efficient 原因（となる） of all things. These men saw that amongst all the 反対するs of sense there was 非，不，無 which had any 力／強力にする or activity 含むd in it; and that by consequence this was likewise true of whatever 団体／死体s they supposed to 存在する without the mind, like unto the 即座の 反対するs of sense. But then, that they should suppose an innumerable multitude of created 存在s, which they 認める are not 有能な of producing any one 影響 in nature, and which therefore are made to no manner of 目的, since God might have done everything 同様に without them: this I say, though we should 許す it possible, must yet be a very unaccountable and extravagant supposition.

54. In the eighth place, the 全世界の／万国共通の concurrent assent of mankind may be thought by some an invincible argument in に代わって of 事柄, or the 存在 of 外部の things. Must we suppose the whole world to be mistaken? And if so, what 原因（となる） can be 割り当てるd of so 普及した and predominant an error? I answer, first, that, upon a 狭くする 調査, it will not perhaps be 設立する so many as is imagined do really believe the 存在 of 事柄 or things without the mind. 厳密に speaking, to believe that which 伴う／関わるs a contradiction, or has no meaning in it, is impossible; and whether the foregoing 表現s are not of that sort, I 言及する it to the impartial examination of the reader. In one sense, indeed, men may be said to believe that 事柄 存在するs, that is, they 行為／法令／行動する as if the 即座の 原因（となる） of their sensations, which 影響する／感情s them every moment, and is so nearly 現在の to them, were some senseless unthinking 存在. But, that they should 明確に apprehend any meaning 示すd by those words, and form thereof a settled 思索的な opinion, is what I am not able to conceive. This is not the only instance wherein men 課す upon themselves, by imagining they believe those propositions which they have often heard, though at 底（に届く） they have no meaning in them.

55. But secondly, though we should 認める a notion to be never so universally and 確固に 固執するd to, yet this is weak argument of its truth to whoever considers what a 広大な number of prejudices and 誤った opinions are everywhere embraced with the 最大の tenaciousness, by the unreflecting (which are the far greater) part of mankind. There was a time when the antipodes and 動議 of the earth were looked upon as monstrous absurdities even by men of learning: and if it be considered what a small 割合 they 耐える to the 残り／休憩（する） of mankind, we shall find that at this day those notions have 伸び（る）d but a very inconsiderable 地盤 in the world.

56. But it is 需要・要求するd that we 割り当てる a 原因（となる） of this prejudice, and account for its 得るing in the world. To this I answer, that men knowing they perceived several ideas, whereof they themselves were not the authors- as not 存在 excited from within nor depending on the 操作／手術 of their wills- this made them 持続する those ideas, or 反対するs of perception had an 存在 独立した・無所属 of and without the mind, without ever dreaming that a contradiction was 伴う／関わるd in those words. But, philosophers having plainly seen that the 即座の 反対するs of perception do not 存在する without the mind, they in some degree 訂正するd the mistake of the vulgar; but at the same time run into another which seems no いっそう少なく absurd, to wit, that there are 確かな 反対するs really 存在するing without the mind, or having a subsistence 際立った from 存在 perceived, of which our ideas are only images or resemblances, imprinted by those 反対するs on the mind. And this notion of the philosophers 借りがあるs its origin to the same 原因（となる） with the former, すなわち, their 存在 conscious that they were not the authors of their own sensations, which they evidently knew were imprinted from without, and which therefore must have some 原因（となる） 際立った from the minds on which they are imprinted.

57. But why they should suppose the ideas of sense to be excited in us by things in their likeness, and not rather have 頼みの綱 to Spirit which alone can 行為／法令／行動する, may be accounted for, first, because they were not aware of the repugnancy there is, 同様に in supposing things like unto our ideas 存在するing without, as in せいにするing to them 力／強力にする or activity. Secondly, because the 最高の Spirit which excites those ideas in our minds, is not 示すd out and 限られた／立憲的な to our 見解（をとる） by any particular finite collection of sensible ideas, as human スパイ／執行官s are by their size, complexion, 四肢s, and 動議s. And thirdly, because His 操作／手術s are 正規の／正選手 and uniform. Whenever the course of nature is interrupted by a 奇蹟, men are ready to own the presence of a superior スパイ／執行官. But, when we see things go on in the ordinary course they do not excite in us any reflexion; their order and concatenation, though it be an argument of the greatest 知恵, 力／強力にする, and goodness in their creator, is yet so constant and familiar to us that we do not think them the 即座の 影響s of a 解放する／自由な Spirit; 特に since inconsistency and mutability in 事実上の／代理, though it be an imperfection, is looked on as a 示す of freedom.

58. Tenthly, it will be 反対するd that the notions we 前進する are inconsistent with several sound truths in philosophy and mathematics. For example, the 動議 of the earth is now universally 認める by 天文学者s as a truth grounded on the clearest and most 納得させるing 推論する／理由s. But, on the foregoing 原則s, there can be no such thing. For, 動議 存在 only an idea, it follows that if it be not perceived it 存在するs not; but the 動議 of the earth is not perceived by sense. I answer, that tenet, if rightly understood, will be 設立する to agree with the 原則s we have 前提d; for, the question whether the earth moves or no 量s in reality to no more than this, to wit, whether we have 推論する／理由 to 結論する, from what has been 観察するd by 天文学者s, that if we were placed in such and such circumstances, and such or such a position and distance both from the earth and sun, we should perceive the former to move の中で the choir of the 惑星s, and appearing in all 尊敬（する）・点s like one of them; and this, by the 設立するd 支配するs of nature which we have no 推論する／理由 to 不信, is reasonably collected from the phenomena.

59. We may, from the experience we have had of the train and succession of ideas in our minds, often make, I will not say uncertain conjectures, but sure and 井戸／弁護士席-grounded 予測s 関心ing the ideas we shall be 影響する／感情d with pursuant to a 広大な／多数の／重要な train of 活動／戦闘s, and be enabled to pass a 権利 judgment of what would have appeared to us, in 事例／患者 we were placed in circumstances very different from those we are in at 現在の. Herein consists the knowledge of nature, which may 保存する its use and certainty very 終始一貫して with what hath been said. It will be 平易な to 適用する this to whatever 反対s of the like sort may be drawn from the magnitude of the 星／主役にするs, or any other 発見s in astronomy or nature.

60. In the eleventh place, it will be 需要・要求するd to what 目的 serves that curious organization of 工場／植物s, and the animal 機械装置 in the parts of animals; might not vegetables grow, and shoot 前へ／外へ leaves of blossoms, and animals 成し遂げる all their 動議s 同様に without as with all that variety of 内部の parts so elegantly contrived and put together; which, 存在 ideas, have nothing powerful or operative in them, nor have any necessary connexion with the 影響s ascribed to them? If it be a Spirit that すぐに produces every 影響 by a fiat or 行為／法令／行動する of his will, we must think all that is 罰金 and 人工的な in the 作品, whether of man or nature, to be made in vain. By this doctrine, though an artist hath made the spring and wheels, and every movement of a watch, and adjusted them in such a manner as he knew would produce the 動議s he designed, yet he must think all this done to no 目的, and that it is an 知能 which directs the 索引, and points to the hour of the day. If so, why may not the 知能 do it, without his 存在 at the 苦痛s of making the movements and putting them together? Why does not an empty 事例／患者 serve 同様に as another? And how comes it to pass that whenever there is any fault in the going of a watch, there is some corresponding disorder to be 設立する in the movements, which 存在 mended by a skilful 手渡す all is 権利 again? The like may be said of all the clockwork of nature, 広大な／多数の／重要な part whereof is so wonderfully 罰金 and subtle as 不十分な to be discerned by the best microscope. In short, it will be asked, how, upon our 原則s, any tolerable account can be given, or any final 原因（となる） 割り当てるd of an innumerable multitude of 団体／死体s and machines, でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるd with the most exquisite art, which in the ありふれた philosophy have very apposite uses 割り当てるd them, and serve to explain 豊富 of phenomena?

61. To all which I answer, first, that though there were some difficulties relating to the 行政 of Providence, and the uses by it 割り当てるd to the several parts of nature, which I could not solve by the foregoing 原則s, yet this 反対 could be of small 負わせる against the truth and certainty of those things which may be 証明するd a priori, with the 最大の 証拠 and rigor of demonstration. Secondly, but neither are the received 原則s 解放する／自由な from the like difficulties; for, it may still be 需要・要求するd to what end God should take those roundabout methods of 影響ing things by 器具s and machines, which no one can 否定する might have been 影響d by the mere 命令（する） of His will without all that apparatus; nay, if we 辛うじて consider it, we shall find the 反対 may be retorted with greater 軍隊 on those who 持つ／拘留する the 存在 of those machines without of mind; for it has been made evident that solidity, 本体，大部分／ばら積みの, 人物／姿／数字, 動議, and the like have no activity or efficacy in them, so as to be 有能な of producing any one 影響 in nature. See sect. 25. Whoever therefore supposes them to 存在する (許すing the supposition possible) when they are not perceived does it manifestly to no 目的; since the only use that is 割り当てるd to them, as they 存在する unperceived, is that they produce those perceivable 影響s which in truth cannot be ascribed to anything but Spirit.

62. But, to come nigher the difficulty, it must be 観察するd that though the 捏造／製作 of all those parts and 組織／臓器s be not 絶対 necessary to the producing any 影響, yet it is necessary to the producing of things in a constant 正規の／正選手 way によれば the 法律s of nature. There are 確かな general 法律s that run through the whole chain of natural 影響s; these are learned by the 観察 and 熟考する／考慮する of nature, and are by men 適用するd 同様に to the でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるing 人工的な things for the use and ornament of life as to the explaining さまざまな phenomena- which explication consists only in shewing the 順応／服従 any particular 現象 hath to the general 法律s of nature, or, which is the same thing, in discovering the uniformity there is in the 生産／産物 of natural 影響s; as will be evident to whoever shall …に出席する to the several instances wherein philosophers pretend to account for 外見s. That there is a 広大な／多数の／重要な and 目だつ use in these 正規の／正選手 constant methods of working 観察するd by the 最高の スパイ／執行官 hath been shewn in sect. 31. And it is no いっそう少なく 明白な that a particular size, 人物／姿／数字, 動議, and disposition of parts are necessary, though not 絶対 to the producing any 影響, yet to the producing it によれば the standing mechanical 法律s of nature. Thus, for instance, it cannot be 否定するd that God, or the 知能 that 支えるs and 支配するs the ordinary course of things, might if He were minded to produce a 奇蹟, 原因（となる） all the 動議s on the dial-plate of a watch, though nobody had ever made the movements and put them in it: but yet, if He will 行為／法令／行動する agreeably to the 支配するs of 機械装置, by Him for wise ends 設立するd and 持続するd in the 創造, it is necessary that those 活動／戦闘s of the watchmaker, whereby he makes the movements and rightly adjusts them, に先行する the 生産／産物 of the aforesaid 動議s; as also that any disorder in them be …に出席するd with the perception of some corresponding disorder in the movements, which 存在 once 訂正するd all is 権利 again.

63. It may indeed on some occasions be necessary that the Author of nature 陳列する，発揮する His overruling 力／強力にする in producing some 外見 out of the ordinary 一連の things. Such exceptions from the general 支配するs of nature are proper to surprise and awe men into an 承認 of the Divine 存在; but then they are to be used but seldom, さもなければ there is a plain 推論する／理由 why they should fail of that 影響. Besides, God seems to choose the 納得させるing our 推論する／理由 of His せいにするs by the 作品 of nature, which discover so much harmony and contrivance in their make, and are such plain 指示，表示する物s of 知恵 and beneficence in their Author, rather than to astonish us into a belief of His 存在 by anomalous and surprising events.

64. To 始める，決める this 事柄 in a yet clearer light, I shall 観察する that what has been 反対するd in sect. 60 量s in reality to no more than this:- ideas are not anyhow and at 無作為の produced, there 存在 a 確かな order and connexion between them, like to that of 原因（となる） and 影響; there are also several combinations of them made in a very 正規の／正選手 and 人工的な manner, which seem like so many 器具s in the 手渡す of nature that, 存在 hid as it were behind the scenes, have a secret 操作／手術 in producing those 外見s which are seen on the theatre of the world, 存在 themselves discernible only to the curious 注目する，もくろむ of the philosopher. But, since one idea cannot be the 原因（となる） of another, to what 目的 is that connexion? And, since those 器具s, 存在 barely inefficacious perceptions in the mind, are not subservient to the 生産／産物 of natural 影響s, it is 需要・要求するd why they are made; or, in other words, what 推論する／理由 can be 割り当てるd why God should make us, upon a の近くに 査察 into His 作品, behold so 広大な／多数の／重要な variety of ideas so artfully laid together, and so much によれば 支配する; it not 存在 信頼できる that He would be at the expense (if one may so speak) of all that art and regularity to no 目的.

65. To all which my answer is, first, that the connexion of ideas does not 暗示する the relation of 原因（となる） and 影響, but only of a 示す or 調印する with the thing 示す. The 解雇する／砲火／射撃 which I see is not the 原因（となる） of the 苦痛 I 苦しむ upon my approaching it, but the 示す that forewarns me of it. In like manner the noise that I hear is not the 影響 of this or that 動議 or 衝突／不一致 of the ambient 団体／死体s, but the 調印する thereof. Secondly, the 推論する／理由 why ideas are formed into machines, that is, 人工的な and 正規の／正選手 combinations, is the same with that for 連合させるing letters into words. That a few 初めの ideas may be made to signify a 広大な／多数の／重要な number of 影響s and 活動／戦闘s, it is necessary they be variously 連合させるd together. And, to the end their use be 永久の and 全世界の／万国共通の, these combinations must be made by 支配する, and with wise contrivance. By this means 豊富 of （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） is 伝えるd unto us, 関心ing what we are to 推定する／予想する from such and such 活動／戦闘s and what methods are proper to be taken for the exciting such and such ideas; which in 影響 is all that I conceive to be distinctly meant when it is said that, by discerning a 人物／姿／数字, texture, and 機械装置 of the inward parts of 団体／死体s, whether natural or 人工的な, we may 達成する to know the several uses and 所有物／資産／財産s depending thereon, or the nature of the thing.

66. Hence, it is evident that those things which, under the notion of a 原因（となる） co-operating or concurring to the 生産／産物 of 影響s, are altogether inexplicable, and run us into 広大な／多数の／重要な absurdities, may be very 自然に explained, and have a proper and obvious use 割り当てるd to them, when they are considered only as 示すs or 調印するs for our （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）. And it is the searching after and endeavouring to understand those 調印するs 学校／設けるd by the Author of Nature, that せねばならない be the 雇用 of the natural philosopher; and not the pretending to explain things by corporeal 原因（となる）s, which doctrine seems to have too much estranged the minds of men from that active 原則, that 最高の and wise Spirit "in whom we live, move, and have our 存在."

67. In the twelfth place, it may perhaps be 反対するd that- though it be （疑いを）晴らす from what has been said that there can be no such thing as an inert, senseless, 延長するd, solid, 人物／姿／数字d, movable 実体 存在するing without the mind, such as philosophers 述べる 事柄- yet, if any man shall leave out of his idea of 事柄 the 肯定的な ideas of 拡張, 人物／姿／数字, solidity and 動議, and say that he means only by that word an inert, senseless 実体, that 存在するs without the mind or unperceived, which is the occasion of our ideas, or at the presence whereof God is pleased to excite ideas in us: it doth not appear but that 事柄 taken in this sense may かもしれない 存在する. In answer to which I say, first, that it seems no いっそう少なく absurd to suppose a 実体 without 事故s, than it is to suppose 事故s without a 実体. But secondly, though we should 認める this unknown 実体 may かもしれない 存在する, yet where can it be supposed to be? That it 存在するs not in the mind is agreed; and that it 存在するs not in place is no いっそう少なく 確かな - since all place or 拡張 存在するs only in the mind, as hath been already 証明するd. It remains therefore that it 存在するs nowhere at all.

68. Let us 診察する a little the description that is here given us of 事柄. It neither 行為／法令／行動するs, nor perceives, nor is perceived; for this is all that is meant by 説 it is an inert, senseless, unknown 実体; which is a 鮮明度／定義 完全に made up of 消極的なs, excepting only the 親族 notion of its standing under or supporting. But then it must be 観察するd that it supports nothing at all, and how nearly this comes to the description of a nonentity I 願望（する） may be considered. But, say you, it is the unknown occasion, at the presence of which ideas are excited in us by the will of God. Now, I would fain know how anything can be 現在の to us, which is neither perceivable by sense nor reflexion, nor 有能な of producing any idea in our minds, nor is at all 延長するd, nor hath any form, nor 存在するs in any place. The words "to be 現在の," when thus 適用するd, must needs be taken in some abstract and strange meaning, and which I am not able to comprehend.

69. Again, let us 診察する what is meant by occasion. So far as I can gather from the ありふれた use of language, that word signifies either the スパイ／執行官 which produces any 影響, or else something that is 観察するd to …を伴って or go before it in the ordinary course of things. But when it is 適用するd to 事柄 as above 述べるd, it can be taken in neither of those senses; for 事柄 is said to be passive and inert, and so cannot be an スパイ／執行官 or efficient 原因（となる）. It is also unperceivable, as 存在 devoid of all sensible 質s, and so cannot be the occasion of our perceptions in the latter sense: as when the 燃やすing my finger is said to be the occasion of the 苦痛 that …に出席するs it. What therefore can be meant by calling 事柄 an occasion? The 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 is either used in no sense at all, or else in some very distant from its received signification.

70. You will Perhaps say that 事柄, though it be not perceived by us, is にもかかわらず perceived by God, to whom it is the occasion of exciting ideas in our minds. For, say you, since we 観察する our sensations to be imprinted in an 整然とした and constant manner, it is but reasonable to suppose there are 確かな constant and 正規の／正選手 occasions of their 存在 produced. That is to say, that there are 確かな 永久の and 際立った 小包s of 事柄, corresponding to our ideas, which, though they do not excite them in our minds, or anywise すぐに 影響する／感情 us, as 存在 altogether passive and unperceivable to us, they are にもかかわらず to God, by whom they art perceived, as it were so many occasions to remind Him when and what ideas to imprint on our minds; that so things may go on in a constant uniform manner.

71. In answer to this, I 観察する that, as the notion of 事柄 is here 明言する／公表するd, the question is no longer 関心ing the 存在 of a thing 際立った from Spirit and idea, from perceiving and 存在 perceived; but whether there are not 確かな ideas of I know not what sort, in the mind of God which are so many 示すs or 公式文書，認めるs that direct Him how to produce sensations in our minds in a constant and 正規の／正選手 method- much after the same manner as a musician is directed by the 公式文書，認めるs of music to produce that harmonious train and composition of sound which is called a tune, though they who hear the music do not perceive the 公式文書，認めるs, and may be 完全に ignorant of them. But, this notion of 事柄 seems too extravagant to deserve a confutation. Besides, it is in 影響 no 反対 against what we have 前進するd, viz. that there is no senseless unperceived 実体.

72. If we follow the light of 推論する／理由, we shall, from the constant uniform method of our sensations, collect the goodness and 知恵 of the Spirit who excites them in our minds; but this is all that I can see reasonably 結論するd from thence. To me, I say, it is evident that the 存在 of a spirit infinitely wise, good, and powerful is abundantly 十分な to explain all the 外見s of nature. But, as for inert, senseless 事柄, nothing that I perceive has any the least connexion with it, or leads to the thoughts of it. And I would fain see any one explain any the meanest 現象 in nature by it, or shew any manner of 推論する／理由, though in the lowest 階級 of probability, that he can have for its 存在, or even make any tolerable sense or meaning of that supposition. For, as to its 存在 an occasion, we have, I think, evidently shewn that with regard to us it is no occasion. It remains therefore that it must be, if at all, the occasion to God of exciting ideas in us; and what this 量s to we have just now seen.

73. It is 価値（がある） while to 反映する a little on the 動機s which induced men to suppose the 存在 of 構成要素 実体; that so having 観察するd the 漸進的な 中止するing and 満期 of those 動機s or 推論する／理由s, we may proportionably 身を引く the assent that was grounded on them. First, therefore, it was thought that colour, 人物／姿／数字, 動議, and the 残り／休憩（する） of the sensible 質s or 事故s, did really 存在する without the mind; and for this 推論する／理由 it seemed needful to suppose some unthinking substratum or 実体 wherein they did 存在する, since they could not be conceived to 存在する by themselves. Afterwards, in 過程 of time, men 存在 納得させるd that colours, sounds, and the 残り／休憩（する） of the sensible, 第２位 質s had no 存在 without the mind, they stripped this substratum or 構成要素 実体 of those 質s, leaving only the 最初の／主要な ones, 人物／姿／数字, 動議, and suchlike, which they still conceived to 存在する without the mind, and その結果 to stand in need of a 構成要素 support. But, it having been shewn that 非，不，無 even of these can かもしれない 存在する さもなければ than in a Spirit or Mind which perceives them it follows that we have no longer any 推論する／理由 to suppose the 存在 of 事柄; nay, that it is utterly impossible there should be any such thing, so long as that word is taken to denote an unthinking substratum of 質s or 事故s wherein they 存在する without the mind.

74. But though it be 許すd by the materialists themselves that 事柄 was thought of only for the sake of supporting 事故s, and, the 推論する／理由 完全に 中止するing, one might 推定する／予想する the mind should 自然に, and without any 不本意 at all, やめる the belief of what was 単独で grounded thereon; yet the prejudice is riveted so 深く，強烈に in our thoughts, that we can 不十分な tell how to part with it, and are therefore inclined, since the thing itself is indefensible, at least to 保持する the 指名する, which we 適用する to I know not what abstracted and 不明確な／無期限の notions of 存在, or occasion, though without any show of 推論する／理由, at least so far as I can see. For, what is there on our part, or what do we perceive, amongst all the ideas, sensations, notions which are imprinted on our minds, either by sense or reflexion, from whence may be inferred the 存在 of an inert, thoughtless, unperceived occasion? and, on the other 手渡す, on the part of an All-十分な Spirit, what can there be that should make us believe or even 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う He is directed by an inert occasion to excite ideas in our minds?

75. It is a very 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の instance of the 軍隊 of prejudice, and much to be lamented, that the mind of man 保持するs so 広大な／多数の／重要な a fondness, against all the 証拠 of 推論する／理由, for a stupid thoughtless somewhat, by the interposition whereof it would as it were 審査する itself from the Providence of God, and 除去する it さらに先に off from the 事件／事情／状勢s of the world. But, though we do the 最大の we can to 安全な・保証する the belief of 事柄, though, when 推論する／理由 forsakes us, we endeavour to support our opinion on the 明らかにする 可能性 of the thing, and though we indulge ourselves in the 十分な 範囲 of an imagination not 規制するd by 推論する／理由 to make out that poor 可能性, yet the upshot of all is, that there are 確かな unknown Ideas in the mind of God; for this, if anything, is all that I conceive to be meant by occasion with regard to God. And this at the 底（に届く） is no longer 競うing for the thing, but for the 指名する.

76. Whether therefore there are such Ideas in the mind of God, and whether they may be called by the 指名する 事柄, I shall not 論争. But, if you stick to the notion of an unthinking 実体 or support of 拡張, 動議, and other sensible 質s, then to me it is most evidently impossible there should be any such thing, since it is a plain repugnancy that those 質s should 存在する in or be supported by an unperceiving 実体.

77. But, say you, though it be 認めるd that there is no thoughtless support of 拡張 and the other 質s or 事故s which we perceive, yet there may perhaps be some inert, unperceiving 実体 or substratum of some other 質s, as 理解できない to us as colours are to a man born blind, because we have not a sense adapted to them. But, if we had a new sense, we should かもしれない no more 疑問 of their 存在 than a blind man made to see does of the 存在 of light and colours. I answer, first, if what you mean by the word 事柄 be only the unknown support of unknown 質s, it is no 事柄 whether there is such a thing or no, since it no way 関心s us; and I do not see the advantage there is in 論争ing about what we know not what, and we know not why.

78. But, secondly, if we had a new sense it could only furnish us with new ideas or sensations; and then we should have the same 推論する／理由 against their 存在するing in an unperceiving 実体 that has been already 申し込む／申し出d with relation to 人物／姿／数字, 動議, colour and the like. 質s, as hath been shewn, are nothing else but sensations or ideas, which 存在する only in a mind perceiving them; and this is true not only of the ideas we are 熟知させるd with at 現在の, but likewise of all possible ideas どれでも.

79. But, you will 主張する, what if I have no 推論する／理由 to believe the 存在 of 事柄? what if I cannot 割り当てる any use to it or explain anything by it, or even conceive what is meant by that word? yet still it is no contradiction to say that 事柄 存在するs, and that this 事柄 is in general a 実体, or occasion of ideas; though indeed to go about to 広げる the meaning or 固執する to any particular explication of those words may be …に出席するd with 広大な／多数の／重要な difficulties. I answer, when words are used without a meaning, you may put them together as you please without danger of running into a contradiction. You may say, for example, that twice two is equal to seven, so long as you 宣言する you do not take the words of that proposition in their usual acceptation but for 示すs of you know not what. And, by the same 推論する／理由, you may say there is an inert thoughtless 実体 without 事故s which is the occasion of our ideas. And we shall understand just as much by one proposition as the other.

80. In the last place, you will say, what if we give up the 原因（となる） of 構成要素 実体, and stand to it that 事柄 is an unknown somewhat- neither 実体 nor 事故, spirit nor idea, inert, thoughtless, indivisible, immovable, unextended, 存在するing in no place. For, say you, whatever may be 勧めるd against 実体 or occasion, or any other 肯定的な or 親族 notion of 事柄, hath no place at all, so long as this 消極的な 鮮明度／定義 of 事柄 is 固執するd to. I answer, you may, if so it shall seem good, use the word "事柄" in the same sense as other men use "nothing," and so make those 条件 転換できる in your style. For, after all, this is what appears to me to be the result of that 鮮明度／定義, the parts whereof when I consider with attention, either collectively or separate from each other, I do not find that there is any 肉親，親類d of 影響 or impression made on my mind different from what is excited by the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 nothing.

81. You will reply, perhaps, that in the fore-said 鮮明度／定義 is 含むd what doth 十分に distinguish it from nothing- the 肯定的な abstract idea of quiddity, （独立の）存在, or 存在. I own, indeed, that those who pretend to the faculty of でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるing abstract general ideas do talk as if they had such an idea, which is, say they, the most abstract and general notion of all; that is, to me, the most 理解できない of all others. That there are a 広大な／多数の／重要な variety of spirits of different orders and capacities, whose faculties both in number and extent are far 越えるing those the Author of my 存在 has bestowed on me, I see no 推論する／理由 to 否定する. And for me to pretend to 決定する by my own few, stinted 狭くする inlets of perception, what ideas the inexhaustible 力／強力にする of the 最高の Spirit may imprint upon them were certainly the 最大の folly and presumption- since there may be, for aught that I know, innumerable sorts of ideas or sensations, as different from one another, and from all that I have perceived, as colours are from sounds. But, how ready soever I may be to 認める the scantiness of my comprehension with regard to the endless variety of spirits and ideas that may かもしれない 存在する, yet for any one to pretend to a notion of （独立の）存在 or 存在, abstracted from spirit and idea, from perceived and 存在 perceived, is, I 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う, a downright repugnancy and trifling with words.- It remains that we consider the 反対s which may かもしれない be made on the part of 宗教.

82. Some there are who think that, though the arguments for the real 存在 of 団体／死体s which are drawn from 推論する／理由 be 許すd not to 量 to demonstration, yet the 宗教上の Scriptures are so （疑いを）晴らす in the point as will 十分に 納得させる every good Christian that 団体／死体s do really 存在する, and are something more than mere ideas; there 存在 in 宗教上の 令状 innumerable facts 関係のある which evidently suppose the reality of 木材／素質 and 石／投石する, mountains and rivers, and cities, and human 団体／死体s. To which I answer that no sort of writings whatever, sacred or profane, which use those and the like words in the vulgar acceptation, or so as to have a meaning in them, are in danger of having their truth called in question by our doctrine. That all those things do really 存在する, that there are 団体／死体s, even corporeal 実体s, when taken in the vulgar sense, has been shewn to be agreeable to our 原則s; and the difference betwixt things and ideas, realities and chimeras, has been distinctly explained. See sect. 29, 30, 33, 36, &c. And I do not think that either what philosophers call 事柄, or the 存在 of 反対するs without the mind, is anywhere について言及するd in Scripture.

83. Again, whether there can be or be not 外部の things, it is agreed on all 手渡すs that the proper use of words is the 場内取引員／株価 our conceptions, or things only as they are known and perceived by us; whence it plainly follows that in the tenets we have laid 負かす／撃墜する there is nothing inconsistent with the 権利 use and significancy of language, and that discourse, of what 肉親，親類d soever, so far as it is intelligible, remains undisturbed. But all this seems so manifest, from what has been 大部分は 始める，決める 前へ／外へ in the 前提s, that it is needless to 主張する any さらに先に on it.

84. But, it will be 勧めるd that 奇蹟s do, at least, lose much of their 強調する／ストレス and 輸入する by our 原則s. What must we think of Moses' 棒? was it not really turned into a serpent; or was there only a change of ideas in the minds of the 観客s? And, can it be supposed that our Saviour did no more at the marriage-feast in Cana than 課す on the sight, and smell, and taste of the guests, so as to create in them the 外見 or idea only of ワイン? The same may be said of all other 奇蹟s; which, in consequence of the foregoing 原則s, must be looked upon only as so many cheats, or illusions of fancy. To this I reply, that the 棒 was changed into a real serpent, and the water into real ワイン. That this does not in the least 否定する what I have どこかよそで said will be evident from sect. 34 and 35. But this 商売／仕事 of real and imaginary has been already so plainly and fully explained, and so often referred to, and the difficulties about it are so easily answered from what has gone before, that it were an affront to the reader's understanding to 再開する the explication of it in its place. I shall only 観察する that if at （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する all who were 現在の should see, and smell, and taste, and drink ワイン, and find the 影響s of it, with me there could be no 疑問 of its reality; so that at 底（に届く） the scruple 関心ing real 奇蹟s has no place at all on ours, but only on the received 原則s, and その結果 makes rather for than against what has been said.

85. Having done with the 反対s, which I endeavoured to 提案する in the clearest light, and gave them all the 軍隊 and 負わせる I could, we proceed in the next place to take a 見解（をとる） of our tenets in their Consequences. Some of these appear at first sight - as that several difficult and obscure questions, on which 豊富 of 憶測 has been thrown away, are 完全に banished from philosophy. "Whether corporeal 実体 can think," "whether 事柄 be infinitely divisible," and "how it operates on spirit"- these and like 調査s have given infinite amusement to philosophers in all ages; but depending on the 存在 of 事柄, they have no longer any place on our 原則s. Many other advantages there are, 同様に with regard to 宗教 as the sciences, which it is 平易な for any one to deduce from what has been 前提d; but this will appear more plainly in the sequel.

86. From the 原則s we have laid 負かす／撃墜する it follows human knowledge may 自然に be 減ずるd to two 長，率いるs- that of ideas and that of spirits. Of each of these I shall 扱う／治療する in order.

And first as to ideas or unthinking things. Our knowledge of these hath been very much obscured and confounded, and we have been led into very dangerous errors, by supposing a twofold 存在 of the 反対するs of sense- the one intelligible or in the mind, the other real and without the mind; whereby unthinking things are thought to have a natural subsistence of their own 際立った from 存在 perceived by spirits. This, which, if I mistake not, hath been shewn to be a most groundless and absurd notion, is the very root of Scepticism; for, so long as men thought that real things subsisted without the mind, and that their knowledge was only so far 前へ／外へ real as it was conformable to real things, it follows they could not be 確かな they had any real knowledge at all. For how can it be known that the things which are perceived are conformable to those which are not perceived, or 存在する without the mind?

87. Colour, 人物／姿／数字, 動議, 拡張, and the like, considered only as so many sensations in the mind, are perfectly known, there 存在 nothing in them which is not perceived. But, if they are looked on as 公式文書，認めるs or images, referred to things or archetypes 存在するing without the mind, then are we 伴う／関わるd all in scepticism. We see only the 外見s, and not the real 質s of things. What may be the 拡張, 人物／姿／数字, or 動議 of anything really and 絶対, or in itself, it is impossible for us to know, but only the 割合 or relation they 耐える to our senses. Things remaining the same, our ideas 変化させる, and which of them, or even whether any of them at all, 代表する the true 質 really 存在するing in the thing, it is out of our reach to 決定する. So that, for aught we know, all we see, hear, and feel may be only phantom and vain chimera, and not at all agree with the real things 存在するing in rerum natura. All this scepticism follows from our supposing a difference between things and ideas, and that the former have a subsistence without the mind or unperceived. It were 平易な to dilate on this 支配する, and show how the arguments 勧めるd by sceptics in all ages depend on the supposition of 外部の 反対するs.

88. So long as we せいにする a real 存在 to unthinking things, 際立った from their 存在 perceived, it is not only impossible for us to know with 証拠 the nature of any real unthinking 存在, but even that it 存在するs. Hence it is that we see philosophers 不信 their senses, and 疑問 of the 存在 of heaven and earth, of everything they see or feel, even of their own 団体／死体s. And, after all their 労働 and struggle of thought, they are 軍隊d to own we cannot 達成する to any self-evident or demonstrative knowledge of the 存在 of sensible things. But, all this doubtfulness, which so bewilders and confounds the mind and makes philosophy ridiculous in the 注目する，もくろむs of the world, 消えるs if we 別館 a meaning to our words. and not amuse ourselves with the 条件 "絶対の," "外部の," "存在する, "and such-like, signifying we know not what. I can 同様に 疑問 of my own 存在 as of the 存在 of those things which I 現実に perceive by sense; it 存在 a manifest contradiction that any sensible 反対する should be すぐに perceived by sight or touch, and at the same time have no 存在 in nature, since the very 存在 of an unthinking 存在 consists in 存在 perceived.

89. Nothing seems of more importance に向かって 築くing a 会社／堅い system of sound and real knowledge, which may be proof against the 強襲，強姦s of Scepticism, than to lay the beginning in a 際立った explication of what is meant by thing, reality, 存在; for in vain shall we 論争 関心ing the real 存在 of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not 直す／買収する，八百長をするd the meaning of those words. Thing or 存在 is the most general 指名する of all; it comprehends under it two 肉親，親類d 完全に 際立った and heterogeneous, and which have nothing ありふれた but the 指名する. viz. spirits and ideas. The former are active, indivisible 実体s: the latter are inert, (n)艦隊／(a)素早いing, 扶養家族 存在s, which subsist not by themselves, but are supported by, or 存在する in minds or spiritual 実体s. We comprehend our own 存在 by inward feeling or reflexion, and that of other spirits by 推論する／理由. We may be said to have some knowledge or notion of our own minds, of spirits and active 存在s, whereof in a strict sense we have not ideas. In like manner, we know and have a notion of relations between things or ideas- which relations are 際立った from the ideas or things 関係のある, inasmuch as the latter may be perceived by us without our perceiving the former. To me it seems that ideas, spirits, and relations are all in their 各々の 肉親，親類d the 反対する of human knowledge and 支配する of discourse; and that the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 idea would be improperly 延長するd to signify everything we know or have any notion of.

90. Ideas imprinted on the senses are real things, or do really 存在する; this we do not 否定する, but we 否定する they can subsist without the minds which perceive them, or that they are resemblances of any archetypes 存在するing without the mind; since the very 存在 of a sensation or idea consists in 存在 perceived, and an idea can be like nothing but an idea. Again, the things perceived by sense may be 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語d 外部の, with regard to their origin- in that they are not 生成するd from within by the mind itself, but imprinted by a Spirit 際立った from that which perceives them. Sensible 反対するs may likewise be said to be "without the mind" in another sense, すなわち when they 存在する in some other mind; thus, when I shut my 注目する，もくろむs, the things I saw may still 存在する, but it must be in another mind.

91. It were a mistake to think that what is here said derogates in the least from the reality of things. It is 定評のある, on the received 原則s, that 拡張, 動議, and in a word all sensible 質s have need of a support, as not 存在 able to subsist by themselves. But the 反対するs perceived by sense are 許すd to be nothing but combinations of those 質s, and その結果 cannot subsist by themselves. Thus far it is agreed on all 手渡す. So that in 否定するing the things perceived by sense an 存在 独立した・無所属 of a 実体 of support wherein they may 存在する, we detract nothing from the received opinion of their reality, and are 有罪の of no 革新 in that 尊敬（する）・点. All the difference is that, によれば us, the unthinking 存在s perceived by sense have no 存在 際立った from 存在 perceived, and cannot therefore 存在する in any other 実体 than those unextended indivisible 実体s or spirits which 行為／法令／行動する and think and perceive them; 反して philosophers vulgarly 持つ／拘留する that the sensible 質s do 存在する in an inert, 延長するd, unperceiving 実体 which they call 事柄, to which they せいにする a natural subsistence, exterior to all thinking 存在s, or 際立った from 存在 perceived by any mind どれでも, even the eternal mind of the Creator, wherein they suppose only ideas of the corporeal 実体s created by him; if indeed they 許す them to be at all created.

92. For, as we have shewn the doctrine of 事柄 or corporeal 実体 to have been the main 中心存在 and support of Scepticism, so likewise upon the same 創立／基礎 have been raised all the impious 計画／陰謀s of Atheism and Irreligion. Nay, so 広大な／多数の／重要な a difficulty has it been thought to conceive 事柄 produced out of nothing, that the most celebrated の中で the 古代の philosophers, even of those who 持続するd the 存在 of a God, have thought 事柄 to be uncreated and co-eternal with Him. How 広大な／多数の／重要な a friend 構成要素 実体 has been to Atheists in all ages were needless to relate. All their monstrous systems have so 明白な and necessary a dependence on it that, when this corner-石／投石する is once 除去するd, the whole fabric cannot choose but 落ちる to the ground, insomuch that it is no longer 価値（がある） while to bestow a particular consideration on the absurdities of every wretched sect of Atheists.

93. That impious and profane persons should readily 落ちる in with those systems which favour their inclinations, by deriding immaterial 実体, and supposing the soul to be divisible and 支配する to 汚職 as the 団体／死体; which 除外する all freedom, 知能, and design from the 形式 of things, and instead thereof make a self-existent, stupid, unthinking 実体 the root and origin of all 存在s; that they should hearken to those who 否定する a Providence, or 査察 of a Superior Mind over the 事件／事情／状勢s of the world, せいにするing the whole 一連の events either to blind chance or 致命的な necessity arising from the impulse of one 団体／死体 or another - all this is very natural. And, on the other 手渡す, when men of better 原則s 観察する the enemies of 宗教 lay so 広大な／多数の／重要な a 強調する／ストレス on unthinking 事柄, and all of them use so much 産業 and artifice to 減ずる everything to it, methinks they should rejoice to see them 奪うd of their grand support, and driven from that only 要塞, without which your Epicureans, Hobbists, and the like, have not even the 影をつくる／尾行する of a pretence, but become the most cheap and 平易な 勝利 in the world.

94. The 存在 of 事柄, or 団体／死体s unperceived, has not only been the main support of Atheists and Fatalists, but on the same 原則 doth Idolatry likewise in all its さまざまな forms depend. Did men but consider that the sun, moon, and 星／主役にするs, and every other 反対する of the senses are only so many sensations in their minds, which have no other 存在 but barely 存在 perceived, doubtless they would never 落ちる 負かす／撃墜する and worship their own ideas, but rather 演説（する）／住所 their homage to that eternal invisible mind which produces and 支えるs all things.

95. The same absurd 原則, by mingling itself with the articles of our 約束, has occasioned no small difficulties to Christians. For example, about the Resurrection, how many scruples and 反対s have been raised by Socinians and others? But do not the most plausible of them depend on the supposition that a 団体／死体 is denominated the same, with regard not to the form or that which is perceived by sense, but the 構成要素 実体, which remains the same under several forms? Take away this 構成要素 実体, about the 身元 whereof all the 論争 is, and mean by 団体／死体 what every plain ordinary person means by that word, to wit, that which is すぐに seen and felt, which is only a combination of sensible 質s or ideas, and then their most unanswerable 反対s come to nothing.

96. 事柄 存在 once expelled out of nature drags with it so many 懐疑的な and impious notions, such an incredible number of 論争s and puzzling questions, which have been thorns in the 味方するs of divines 同様に as philosophers, and made so much fruitless work for mankind, that if the arguments we have produced against it are not 設立する equal to demonstration (as to me they evidently seem), yet I am sure all friends to knowledge, peace, and 宗教 have 推論する／理由 to wish they were.

97. Beside the 外部の 存在 of the 反対するs of perception, another 広大な／多数の／重要な source of errors and difficulties with regard to ideal knowledge is the doctrine of abstract ideas, such as it hath been 始める，決める 前へ／外へ in the Introduction. The plainest things in the world, those we are most intimately 熟知させるd with and perfectly know, when they are considered in an abstract way, appear strangely difficult and 理解できない. Time, place, and 動議, taken in particular or 固める／コンクリート, are what everybody knows, but, having passed through the 手渡すs of a metaphysician, they become too abstract and 罰金 to be apprehended by men of ordinary sense. 企て，努力，提案 your servant 会合，会う you at such a time in such a place, and he shall never stay to 審議する／熟考する on the meaning of those words; in conceiving that particular time and place, or the 動議 by which he is to get thither, he finds not the least difficulty. But if time be taken 排除的 of all those particular 活動／戦闘s and ideas that diversify the day, 単に for the 延長／続編 of 存在 or duration in abstract, then it will perhaps gravel even a philosopher to comprehend it.

98. For my own part, whenever I 試みる／企てる to でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる a simple idea of time, abstracted from the succession of ideas in my mind, which flows uniformly and is 参加するd by all 存在s, I am lost and embrangled in inextricable difficulties. I have no notion of it at all, only I hear others say it is infinitely divisible, and speak of it in such a manner as leads me to entertain 半端物 thoughts of my 存在; since that doctrine lays one under an 絶対の necessity of thinking, either that he passes away innumerable ages without a thought, or else that he is 絶滅するd every moment of his life, both which seem 平等に absurd. Time therefore 存在 nothing, abstracted from the sucession of ideas in our minds, it follows that the duration of any finite spirit must be 概算の by the number of ideas or 活動／戦闘s 後継するing each other in that same spirit or mind. Hence, it is a plain consequence that the soul always thinks; and in truth whoever shall go about to divide in his thoughts, or abstract the 存在 of a spirit from its cogitation, will, I believe, find it no 平易な 仕事.

99. So likewise when we 試みる／企てる to abstract 拡張 and 動議 from all other 質s, and consider them by themselves, we presently lose sight of them, and run into 広大な／多数の／重要な extravagances. All which depend on a twofold abstraction; first, it is supposed that 拡張, for example, may be abstracted from all other sensible 質s; and secondly, that the （独立の）存在 of 拡張 may be abstracted from its 存在 perceived. But, whoever shall 反映する, and take care to understand what he says, will, if I mistake not, 認める that all sensible 質s are alike sensations and alike real; that where the 拡張 is, there is the colour, too, i.e., in his mind, and that their archetypes can 存在する only in some other mind; and that the 反対するs of sense are nothing but those sensations 連合させるd, blended, or (if one may so speak) 固める／コンクリートd together; 非，不，無 of all which can be supposed to 存在する unperceived.

100. What it is for a man to be happy, or an 反対する good, every one may think he knows. But to でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる an abstract idea of happiness, prescinded from all particular 楽しみ, or of goodness from everything that is good, this is what few can pretend to. So likewise a man may be just and virtuous without having 正確な ideas of 司法（官） and virtue. The opinion that those and the like words stand for general notions, abstracted from all particular persons and 活動／戦闘s, seems to have （判決などを）下すd morality very difficult, and the 熟考する／考慮する thereof of small use to mankind. And in 影響 the doctrine of abstraction has not a little 与える／捧げるd に向かって spoiling the most useful parts of knowledge.

101. The two 広大な／多数の／重要な 州s of 思索的な science conversant about ideas received from sense, are Natural Philosophy and Mathematics; with regard to each of these I shall make some 観察s. And first I shall say somewhat of Natural Philosophy. On this 支配する it is that the sceptics 勝利. All that 在庫／株 of arguments they produce to depreciate our faculties and make mankind appear ignorant and low, are drawn principally from this 長，率いる, すなわち, that we are under an invincible blindness as to the true and real nature of things. This they 誇張する, and love to 大きくする on. We are miserably bantered, say they, by our senses, and amused only with the outside and show of things. The real essence, the 内部の 質s and 憲法 of every the meanest 反対する, is hid from our 見解（をとる）; something there is in every 減少（する） of water, every 穀物 of sand, which it is beyond the 力／強力にする of human understanding to fathom or comprehend. But, it is evident from what has been shewn that all this （民事の）告訴 is groundless, and that we are 影響（力）d by 誤った 原則s to that degree as to 不信 our senses, and think we know nothing of those things which we perfectly comprehend.

102. One 広大な／多数の／重要な 誘導 to our pronouncing ourselves ignorant of the nature of things is the 現在の opinion that everything 含むs within itself the 原因（となる） of its 所有物／資産／財産s; or that there is in each 反対する an inward essence which is the source whence its discernible 質s flow, and whereon they depend. Some have pretended to account for 外見s by occult 質s, but of late they are mostly 解決するd into mechanical 原因（となる）s, to wit. the 人物／姿／数字, 動議, 負わせる, and suchlike 質s, of insensible 粒子s; 反して, in truth, there is no other スパイ／執行官 or efficient 原因（となる） than spirit, it 存在 evident that 動議, 同様に as all other ideas, is perfectly inert. See sect. 25. Hence, to endeavour to explain the 生産／産物 of colours or sounds, by 人物／姿／数字, 動議, magnitude, and the like, must needs be 労働 in vain. And accordingly we see the 試みる／企てるs of that 肉親，親類d are not at all 満足な. Which may be said in general of those instances wherein one idea or 質 is 割り当てるd for the 原因（となる） of another. I need not say how many hypotheses and 憶測s are left out, and how much the 熟考する／考慮する of nature is abridged by this doctrine.

103. The 広大な／多数の／重要な mechanical 原則 now in vogue is attraction. That a 石／投石する 落ちるs to the earth, or the sea swells に向かって the moon, may to some appear 十分に explained その為に. But how are we enlightened by 存在 told this is done by attraction? Is it that that word signifies the manner of the 傾向, and that it is by the 相互の 製図／抽選 of 団体／死体s instead of their 存在 impelled or protruded に向かって each other? But, nothing is 決定するd of the manner or 活動／戦闘, and it may as truly (for aught we know) be 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語d "impulse," or "protrusion," as "attraction." Again, the parts of steel we see cohere 堅固に together, and this also is accounted for by attraction; but, in this as in the other instances, I do not perceive that anything is 示す besides the 影響 itself; for as to the manner of the 活動／戦闘 whereby it is produced, or the 原因（となる） which produces it, these are not so much as 目的（とする）d at.

104. Indeed, if we take a 見解（をとる） of the several phenomena, and compare them together, we may 観察する some likeness and 順応／服従 between them. For example, in the 落ちるing of a 石／投石する to the ground, in the rising of the sea に向かって the moon, in cohesion, crystallization, etc, there is something alike, すなわち, an union or 相互の approach of 団体／死体s. So that any one of these or the like phenomena may not seem strange or surprising to a man who has nicely 観察するd and compared the 影響s of nature. For that only is thought so which is uncommon, or a thing by itself, and out of the ordinary course of our 観察. That 団体／死体s should tend に向かって the centre of the earth is not thought strange, because it is what we perceive every moment of our lives. But, that they should have a like gravitation に向かって the centre of the moon may seem 半端物 and unaccountable to most men, because it is discerned only in the tides. But a philosopher, whose thoughts take in a larger compass of nature, having 観察するd a 確かな similitude of 外見s, 同様に in the heavens as the earth, that argue innumerable 団体／死体s to have a 相互の 傾向 に向かって each other, which he denotes by the general 指名する "attraction," whatever can be 減ずるd to that he thinks 正確に，正当に accounted for. Thus he explains the tides by the attraction of the terraqueous globe に向かって the moon, which to him does not appear 半端物 or anomalous, but only a particular example of a general 支配する or 法律 of nature.

105. If therefore we consider the difference there is betwixt natural philosophers and other men, with regard to their knowledge of the phenomena, we shall find it consists not in an exacter knowledge of the efficient 原因（となる） that produces them- for that can be no other than the will of a spirit- but only in a greater largeness of comprehension, whereby analogies, harmonies, and 協定s are discovered in the 作品 of nature, and the particular 影響s explained, that is, 減ずるd to general 支配するs, see sect. 62, which 支配するs, grounded on the analogy and uniformness 観察するd in the 生産／産物 of natural 影響s, are most agreeable and sought after by the mind; for that they 延長する our prospect beyond what is 現在の and 近づく to us, and enable us to make very probable conjectures touching things that may have happened at very 広大な／多数の／重要な distances of time and place, 同様に as to 予報する things to come; which sort of endeavour に向かって omniscience is much 影響する／感情d by the mind.

106. But we should proceed warily in such things, for we are apt to lay too 広大な／多数の／重要な 強調する／ストレス on analogies, and, to the prejudice of truth, humour that 切望 of the mind whereby it is carried to 延長する its knowledge into general theorems. For example, in the 商売／仕事 of gravitation or 相互の attraction, because it appears in many instances, some are straightway for pronouncing it 全世界の／万国共通の; and that to attract and be attracted by every other 団体／死体 is an 必須の 質 inherent in all 団体／死体s どれでも. 反して it is evident the 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 星／主役にするs have no such 傾向 に向かって each other; and, so far is that gravitation from 存在 必須の to 団体／死体s that in some instances a やめる contrary 原則 seems to shew itself; as in the perpendicular growth of 工場／植物s, and the elasticity of the 空気／公表する. There is nothing necessary or 必須の in the 事例／患者, but it depends 完全に on the will of the 治める／統治するing Spirit, who 原因（となる）s 確かな 団体／死体s to cleave together or tend に向かって each other によれば さまざまな 法律s, whilst He keeps others at a 直す／買収する，八百長をするd distance; and to some He gives a やめる contrary 傾向 to 飛行機で行く asunder just as He sees convenient.

107. After what has been 前提d, I think we may lay 負かす／撃墜する the に引き続いて 結論s. First, it is plain philosophers amuse themselves in vain, when they 問い合わせ for any natural efficient 原因（となる）, 際立った from a mind or spirit. Secondly, considering the whole 創造 is the workmanship of a wise and good スパイ／執行官, it should seem to become philosophers to 雇う their thoughts (contrary to what some 持つ／拘留する) about the final 原因（となる）s of things; and I 自白する I see no 推論する／理由 why pointing out the さまざまな ends to which natural things are adapted, and for which they were 初めは with unspeakable 知恵 contrived, should not be thought one good way of accounting for them, and altogether worthy a philosopher. Thirdly, from what has been 前提d no 推論する／理由 can be drawn why the history of nature should not still be 熟考する／考慮するd, and 観察s and 実験s made, which, that they are of use to mankind, and enable us to draw any general 結論s, is not the result of any immutable habitudes or relations between things themselves, but only of God's goodness and 親切 to men in the 行政 of the world. See sect. 30 and 31 Fourthly, by a diligent 観察 of the phenomena within our 見解（をとる）, we may discover the general 法律s of nature, and from them deduce the other phenomena; I do not say 論証する, for all deductions of that 肉親，親類d depend on a supposition that the Author of nature always operates uniformly, and in a constant observance of those 支配するs we take for 原則s: which we cannot evidently know.

108. Those men who でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる general 支配するs from the phenomena and afterwards derive the phenomena from those 支配するs, seem to consider 調印するs rather than 原因（となる）s. A man may 井戸／弁護士席 understand natural 調印するs without knowing their analogy, or 存在 able to say by what 支配する a thing is so or so. And, as it is very possible to 令状 improperly, through too strict an observance of general grammar 支配するs; so, in arguing from general 法律s of nature, it is not impossible we may 延長する the analogy too far, and by that means run into mistakes.

109. As in reading other 調書をとる／予約するs a wise man will choose to 直す／買収する，八百長をする his thoughts on the sense and 適用する it to use, rather than lay them out in grammatical 発言／述べるs on the language; so, in perusing the 容積／容量 of nature, it seems beneath the dignity of the mind to 影響する／感情 an exactness in 減ずるing each particular 現象 to general 支配するs, or shewing how it follows from them. We should 提案する to ourselves nobler 見解（をとる）s, すなわち, to recreate and exalt the mind with a prospect of the beauty, order. extent, and variety of natural things: hence, by proper inferences, to 大きくする our notions of the grandeur, 知恵, and beneficence of the Creator; and lastly, to make the several parts of the 創造, so far as in us lies, subservient to the ends they were designed for, God's glory, and the sustentation and 慰安 of ourselves and fellow-creatures.

110. The best 重要な for the aforesaid analogy or natural Science will be easily 定評のある to be a 確かな celebrated Treatise of Mechanics. In the 入り口 of which 正確に，正当に admired treatise, Time, Space, and 動議 are distinguished into 絶対の and 親族, true and 明らかな, mathematical and vulgar; which distinction, as it is 捕まらないで explained by the author, does suppose these 量s to have an 存在 without the mind; and that they are ordinarily conceived with relation to sensible things, to which にもかかわらず in their own nature they 耐える no relation at all.

111. As for Time, as it is there taken in an 絶対の or abstracted sense, for the duration or perseverance of the 存在 of things, I have nothing more to 追加する 関心ing it after what has been already said on that 支配する. Sect. 97 and 98. For the 残り／休憩（する）, this celebrated author 持つ／拘留するs there is an 絶対の Space, which, 存在 unperceivable to sense, remains in itself 類似の and immovable; and 親族 space to be the 手段 thereof, which, 存在 movable and defined by its 状況／情勢 in 尊敬（する）・点 of sensible 団体／死体s, is vulgarly taken for immovable space. Place he defines to be that part of space which is 占領するd by any 団体／死体; and （許可，名誉などを）与えるing as the space is 絶対の or 親族 so also is the place. 絶対の 動議 is said to be the translation of a 団体／死体 from 絶対の place to 絶対の place, as 親族 動議 is from one 親族 place to another. And, because the parts of 絶対の space do not 落ちる under our senses, instead of them we are 強いるd to use their sensible 対策, and so define both place and 動議 with 尊敬（する）・点 to 団体／死体s which we regard as immovable. But, it is said in philosophical 事柄s we must abstract from our senses, since it may be that 非，不，無 of those 団体／死体s which seem to be quiescent are truly so, and the same thing which is moved 比較して may be really at 残り／休憩（する）; as likewise one and the same 団体／死体 may be in 親族 残り／休憩（する） and 動議, or even moved with contrary 親族 動議s at the same time, （許可，名誉などを）与えるing as its place is variously defined. All which ambiguity is to be 設立する in the 明らかな 動議s, but not at all in the true or 絶対の, which should therefore be alone regarded in philosophy. And the true as we are told are distinguished from 明らかな or 親族 動議s by the に引き続いて 所有物／資産／財産s.- First, in true or 絶対の 動議 all parts which 保存する the same position with 尊敬（する）・点 of the whole, partake of the 動議s of the whole. Secondly, the place 存在 moved, that which is placed therein is also moved; so that a 団体／死体 moving in a place which is in 動議 doth part icipate the 動議 of its place. Thirdly, true 動議 is never 生成するd or changed さもなければ than by 軍隊 impressed on the 団体／死体 itself. Fourthly, true 動議 is always changed by 軍隊 impressed on the 団体／死体 moved. Fifthly, in circular 動議 barely 親族 there is no centrifugal 軍隊, which, にもかかわらず, in that which is true or 絶対の, is 比例する to the 量 of 動議.

112. But, notwithstanding what has been said, I must 自白する it does not appear to me that there can be any 動議 other than 親族; so that to conceive 動議 there must be at least conceived two 団体／死体s, whereof the distance or position in regard to each other is 変化させるd. Hence, if there was one only 団体／死体 in 存在 it could not かもしれない be moved. This seems evident, in that the idea I have of 動議 doth やむを得ず 含む relation.

113. But, though in every 動議 it be necessary to conceive more 団体／死体s than one, yet it may be that one only is moved, すなわち, that on which the 軍隊 原因（となる）ing the change in the distance or 状況／情勢 of the 団体／死体s, is impressed. For, however some may define 親族 動議, so as to 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 that 団体／死体 moved which changes its distance from some other 団体／死体, whether the 軍隊 or 活動／戦闘 原因（となる）ing that change were impressed on it or no, yet as 親族 動議 is that which is perceived by sense, and regarded in the ordinary 事件／事情／状勢s of life, it should seem that every man of ありふれた sense knows what it is 同様に as the best philosopher. Now, I ask any one whether, in his sense of 動議 as he walks along the streets, the 石／投石するs he passes over may be said to move, because they change distance with his feet? To me it appears that though 動議 含むs a relation of one thing to another, yet it is not necessary that each 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 of the relation be denominated from it. As a man may think of somewhat which does not think, so a 団体／死体 may be moved to or from another 団体／死体 which is not therefore itself in 動議.

114. As the place happens to be variously defined, the 動議 which is 関係のある to it 変化させるs. A man in a ship may be said to be quiescent with relation to the 味方するs of the 大型船, and yet move with relation to the land. Or he may move eastward in 尊敬（する）・点 of the one, and 西方の in 尊敬（する）・点 of the other. In the ありふれた 事件／事情／状勢s of life men never go beyond the earth to define the place of any 団体／死体; and what is quiescent in 尊敬（する）・点 of that is accounted 絶対 to be so. But philosophers, who have a greater extent of thought, and juster notions of the system of things, discover even the earth itself to be moved. In order therefore to 直す／買収する，八百長をする their notions they seem to conceive the corporeal world as finite, and the 最大の unmoved 塀で囲むs or 爆撃する thereof to be the place whereby they 見積（る） true 動議s. If we sound our own conceptions, I believe we may find all the 絶対の 動議 we can でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる an idea of to be at 底（に届く） no other than 親族 動議 thus defined. For, as hath been already 観察するd, 絶対の 動議, 排除的 of all 外部の relation, is 理解できない; and to this 肉親，親類d of 親族 動議 all the above-について言及するd 所有物／資産／財産s, 原因（となる）s, and 影響s ascribed to 絶対の 動議 will, if I mistake not, be 設立する to agree. As to what is said of the centrifugal 軍隊, that it does not at all belong to circular 親族 動議, I do not see how this follows from the 実験 which is brought to 証明する it. See Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, in Schol. Def. VIII. For the water in the 大型船 at that time wherein it is said to have the greatest 親族 circular 動議, hath, I think, no 動議 at all; as is plain from the foregoing section.

115. For, to denominate a 団体／死体 moved it is requisite, first, that it change its distance or 状況／情勢 with regard to some other 団体／死体; and secondly, that the 軍隊 occasioning that change be 適用するd to it. If either of these be wanting, I do not think that, agreeably to the sense of mankind, or the propriety of language, a 団体／死体 can be said to be in 動議. I 認める indeed that it is possible for us to think a 団体／死体 which we see change its distance from some other to be moved, though it have no 軍隊 適用するd to it (in which sense there may be 明らかな 動議), but then it is because the 軍隊 原因（となる）ing the change of distance is imagined by us to be 適用するd or impressed on that 団体／死体 thought to move; which indeed shews we are 有能な of mistaking a thing to be in 動議 which is not, and that is all.

116. From what has been said it follows that the philosophic consideration of 動議 does not 暗示する the 存在 of an 絶対の Space, 際立った from that which is perceived by sense and 関係のある 団体／死体s; which that it cannot 存在する without the mind is （疑いを）晴らす upon the same 原則s that 論証する the like of all other 反対するs of sense. And perhaps, if we 問い合わせ 辛うじて, we shall find we cannot even でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる an idea of pure Space 排除的 of all 団体／死体. This I must 自白する seems impossible, as 存在 a most abstract idea. When I excite a 動議 in some part of my 団体／死体, if it be 解放する／自由な or without 抵抗, I say there is Space; but if I find a 抵抗, then I say there is 団体／死体; and in 割合 as the 抵抗 to 動議 is lesser or greater, I say the space is more or いっそう少なく pure. So that when I speak of pure or empty space, it is not to be supposed that the word "space" stands for an idea 際立った from or 考えられる without 団体／死体 and 動議- though indeed we are apt to think every noun 事実 stands for a 際立った idea that may be separated from all others; which has occasioned infinite mistakes. When, therefore, supposing all the world to be 絶滅するd besides my own 団体／死体, I say there still remains pure Space, その為に nothing else is meant but only that I conceive it possible for the 四肢s of my 団体／死体 to be moved on all 味方するs without the least 抵抗, but if that, too, were 絶滅するd then there could be no 動議, and その結果 no Space. Some, perhaps, may think the sense of seeing doth furnish them with the idea of pure space; but it is plain from what we have どこかよそで shewn, that the ideas of space and distance are not 得るd by that sense. See the Essay 関心ing 見通し.

117. What is here laid 負かす／撃墜する seems to put an end to all those 論争s and difficulties that have sprung up amongst the learned 関心ing the nature of pure Space. But the 長，指導者 advantage arising from it is that we are 解放する／自由なd from that dangerous 窮地, to which several who have 雇うd their thoughts on that 支配する imagine themselves 減ずるd, to wit, of thinking either that Real Space is God, or else that there is something beside God which is eternal, uncreated, infinite, indivisible, immutable. Both which may 正確に，正当に be thought pernicious and absurd notions. It is 確かな that not a few divines, 同様に as philosophers of 広大な／多数の／重要な 公式文書，認める, have, from the difficulty they 設立する in conceiving either 限界s or annihilation of space, 結論するd it must be divine. And some of late have 始める，決める themselves 特に to shew the incommunicable せいにするs of God agree to it. Which doctrine, how unworthy soever it may seem of the Divine Nature, yet I do not see how we can get （疑いを）晴らす of it, so long as we 固執する to the received opinions.

118. Hitherto of Natural Philosophy: we come now to make some 調査 関心ing that other 広大な／多数の／重要な 支店 of 思索的な knowledge, to wit, Mathematics. These, how celebrated soever they may be for their clearness and certainty of demonstration, which is hardly anywhere else to be 設立する, cannot にもかかわらず be supposed altogether 解放する／自由な from mistakes, if in their 原則s there lurks some secret error which is ありふれた to the professors of those sciences with the 残り／休憩（する） of mankind. Mathematicians, though they deduce their theorems from a 広大な／多数の／重要な 高さ of 証拠, yet their first 原則s are 限られた／立憲的な by the consideration of 量: and they do not 上がる into any 調査 関心ing those transcendental maxims which 影響（力） all the particular sciences, each part whereof, Mathematics not excepted, does その結果 参加する of the errors 伴う／関わるd in them. That the 原則s laid 負かす／撃墜する by mathematicians are true, and their way of deduction from those 原則s （疑いを）晴らす and incontestible, we do not 否定する; but, we 持つ／拘留する there may be 確かな erroneous maxims of greater extent than the 反対する of Mathematics, and for that 推論する／理由 not expressly について言及するd, though tacitly supposed throughout the whole 進歩 of that science; and that the ill 影響s of those secret unexamined errors are diffused through all the 支店s thereof. To be plain, we 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う the mathematicians are 同様に as other men 関心d in the errors arising from the doctrine of abstract general ideas, and the 存在 of 反対するs without the mind.

119. Arithmetic has been thought to have for its 反対する abstract ideas of Number; of which to understand the 所有物／資産／財産s and 相互の habitudes, is supposed no mean part of 思索的な knowledge. The opinion of the pure and 知識人 nature of numbers in abstract has made them in esteem with those philosophers who seem to have 影響する／感情d an uncommon fineness and elevation of thought. It hath 始める，決める a price on the most trifling 数値／数字による 憶測s which in practice are of no use, but serve only for amusement; and hath therefore so far 感染させるd the minds of some, that they have dreamed of mighty mysteries 伴う／関わるd in numbers, and 試みる／企てるd the explication of natural things by them. But, if we 問い合わせ into our own thoughts, and consider what has been 前提d, we may perhaps entertain a low opinion of those high flights and abstractions, and look on all 調査s, about numbers only as so many difficiles nugae, so far as they are not subservient to practice, and 促進する the 利益 of life.

120. まとまり in abstract we have before considered in sect. 13, from which and what has been said in the Introduction, it plainly follows there is not any such idea. But, number 存在 defined a "collection of 部隊s," we may 結論する that, if there be no such thing as まとまり or 部隊 in abstract, there are no ideas of number in abstract denoted by the numeral 指名するs and 人物／姿／数字s. The theories therefore in Arithmetic. if they are abstracted from the 指名するs and 人物／姿／数字s, as likewise from all use and practice, 同様に as from the particular things numbered, can be supposed to have nothing at all for their 反対する; hence we may see how 完全に the science of numbers is subordinate to practice, and how jejune and trifling it becomes when considered as a 事柄 of mere 憶測.

121. However, since there may be some who, deluded by the specious show of discovering abstracted verities, waste their time in arithmetical theorems and problems which have not any use, it will not be amiss if we more fully consider and expose the vanity of that pretence; and this will plainly appear by taking a 見解（をとる） of Arithmetic in its 幼少／幼藍期, and 観察するing what it was that 初めは put men on the 熟考する／考慮する of that science, and to what 範囲 they directed it. It is natural to think that at first, men, for 緩和する of memory and help of computation, made use of 反対するs, or in 令状ing of 選び出す／独身 一打／打撃s, points, or the like, each whereof was made to signify an 部隊, i.e., some one thing of whatever 肉親，親類d they had occasion to reckon. Afterwards they 設立する out the more compendious ways of making one character stand in place of several 一打／打撃s or points. And, lastly, the notation of the Arabians or Indians （機の）カム into use, wherein, by the repetition of a few characters or 人物／姿／数字s, and 変化させるing the signification of each 人物／姿／数字 によれば the place it 得るs, all numbers may be most aptly 表明するd; which seems to have been done in imitation of language, so that an exact analogy is 観察するd betwixt the notation by 人物／姿／数字s and 指名するs, the nine simple 人物／姿／数字s answering the nine first numeral 指名するs and places in the former, corresponding to denominations in the latter. And agreeably to those 条件s of the simple and 地元の value of 人物／姿／数字s, were contrived methods of finding, from the given 人物／姿／数字s or 示すs of the parts, what 人物／姿／数字s and how placed are proper to denote the whole, or 副／悪徳行為 versa. And having 設立する the sought 人物／姿／数字s, the same 支配する or analogy 存在 観察するd throughout, it is 平易な to read them into words; and so the number becomes perfectly known. For then the number of any particular things is said to be known, when we know the 指名する of 人物／姿／数字s (with their 予定 協定) that によれば the standing analogy belong to them. For, these 調印するs 存在 known, we can by the 操作／手術s of arithmetic know the 調印するs of any part of the particular sums 示す by them; and, thus 計算するing in 調印するs (because of the connexion 設立するd betwixt them and the 際立った multitudes of things whereof one is taken for an 部隊), we may be able rightly to sum up, divide, and 割合 the things themselves that we ーするつもりである to number.

122. In Arithmetic, therefore, we regard not the things, but the 調印するs, which にもかかわらず are not regarded for their own sake, but because they direct us how to 行為／法令／行動する with relation to things, and 配置する／処分する／したい気持ちにさせる rightly of them. Now, agreeably to what we have before 観察するd of words in general (sect. 19, Introd.) it happens here likewise that abstract ideas are thought to be 示す by numeral 指名するs or characters, while they do not 示唆する ideas of particular things to our minds. I shall not at 現在の enter into a more particular dissertation on this 支配する, but only 観察する that it is evident from what has been said, those things which pass for abstract truths and theorems 関心ing numbers, are in reality conversant about no 反対する 際立った from particular numeral things, except only 指名するs and characters, which 初めは （機の）カム to be considered on no other account but their 存在 調印するs, or 有能な to 代表する aptly whatever particular things men had need to 計算する. Whence it follows that to 熟考する／考慮する them for their own sake would be just as wise, and to as good 目的 as if a man, neglecting the true use or 初めの 意向 and subserviency of language, should spend his time in impertinent 批評s upon words, or reasonings and 論争s 純粋に 言葉の.

123. From numbers we proceed to speak of 拡張, which, considered as 親族, is the 反対する of Geometry. The infinite divisibility of finite 拡張, though it is not expressly laid 負かす／撃墜する either as an axiom or theorem in the elements of that science, yet is throughout the same everywhere supposed and thought to have so inseparable and 必須の a connexion with the 原則s and demonstrations in Geometry, that mathematicians never 収容する／認める it into 疑問, or make the least question of it. And, as this notion is the source from whence do spring all those amusing geometrical paradoxes which have such a direct repugnancy to the plain ありふれた sense of mankind, and are 認める with so much 不本意 into a mind not yet debauched by learning; so it is the 主要な／長／主犯 occasion of all that nice and extreme subtilty which （判決などを）下すs the 熟考する／考慮する of Mathematics so difficult and tedious. Hence, if we can make it appear that no finite 拡張 含む／封じ込めるs innumerable parts, or is infinitely divisible, it follows that we shall at once （疑いを）晴らす the science of Geometry from a 広大な／多数の／重要な number of difficulties and contradictions which have ever been esteemed a reproach to human 推論する／理由, and withal make the attainment thereof a 商売／仕事 of much いっそう少なく time and 苦痛s than it hitherto has been.

124. Every particular finite 拡張 which may かもしれない be the 反対する of our thought is an idea 存在するing only in the mind, and その結果 each part thereof must be perceived. If, therefore, I cannot perceive innumerable parts in any finite 拡張 that I consider, it is 確かな they are not 含む／封じ込めるd in it; but, it is evident that I cannot distinguish innumerable parts in any particular line, surface, or solid, which I either perceive by sense, or 人物／姿／数字 to myself in my mind: wherefore I 結論する they are not 含む／封じ込めるd in it. Nothing can be plainer to me than that the 拡張s I have in 見解（をとる） are no other than my own ideas; and it is no いっそう少なく plain that I cannot 解決する any one of my ideas into an infinite number of other ideas, that is, that they are not infinitely divisible. If by finite 拡張 be meant something 際立った from a finite idea, I 宣言する I do not know what that is, and so cannot 断言する or 否定する anything of it. But if the 条件 "拡張," "parts," &c., are taken in any sense 考えられる, that is, for ideas, then to say a finite 量 or 拡張 consists of parts infinite in number is so manifest a contradiction, that every one at first sight 認めるs it to be so; and it is impossible it should ever 伸び（る） the assent of any reasonable creature who is not brought to it by gentle and slow degrees, as a 変えるd Gentile to the belief of transubstantiation. 古代の and rooted prejudices do often pass into 原則s; and those propositions which once 得る the 軍隊 and credit of a 原則, are not only themselves, but likewise whatever is deducible from them, thought 特権d from all examination. And there is no absurdity so 甚だしい／１２ダース, which, by this means, the mind of man may not be 用意が出来ている to swallow.

125. He whose understanding is 所有するd with the doctrine of abstract general ideas may be 説得するd that (whatever be thought of the ideas of sense) 拡張 in abstract is infinitely divisible. And one who thinks the 反対するs of sense 存在する without the mind will perhaps in virtue thereof be brought to 収容する／認める that a line but an インチ long may 含む／封じ込める innumerable parts- really 存在するing, though too small to be discerned. These errors are 汚職，収賄d 同様に in the minds of geometricians as of other men, and have a like 影響（力） on their reasonings; and it were no difficult thing to shew how the arguments from Geometry made use of to support the infinite divisibility of 拡張 are 底（に届く）d on them. At 現在の we shall only 観察する in general whence it is the mathematicians are all so fond and tenacious of that doctrine.

126. It hath been 観察するd in another place that the theorems and demonstrations in Geometry are conversant about 全世界の／万国共通の ideas (sect. 15, Introd.); where it is explained in what sense this せねばならない be understood, to wit, the particular lines and 人物／姿／数字s 含むd in the diagram are supposed to stand for innumerable others of different sizes; or, in other words, the geometer considers them abstracting from their magnitude- which does not 暗示する that he forms an abstract idea, but only that he cares not what the particular magnitude is, whether 広大な／多数の／重要な or small, but looks on that as a thing different to the demonstration. Hence it follows that a line in the 計画／陰謀 but an インチ long must be spoken of as though it 含む／封じ込めるd ten thousand parts, since it is regarded not in itself, but as it is 全世界の／万国共通の; and it is 全世界の／万国共通の only in its signification, whereby it 代表するs innumerable lines greater than itself, in which may be distinguished ten thousand parts or more, though there may not be above an インチ in it. After this manner, the 所有物／資産／財産s of the lines 示す are (by a very usual 人物／姿／数字) transferred to the 調印する, and thence, through mistake, though to appertain to it considered in its own nature.

127. Because there is no number of parts so 広大な／多数の／重要な but it is possible there may be a line 含む／封じ込めるing more, the インチ-line is said to 含む／封じ込める parts more than any assignable number; which is true, not of the インチ taken 絶対, but only for the things 示す by it. But men, not 保持するing that distinction in their thoughts, slide into a belief that the small particular line 述べるd on paper 含む／封じ込めるs in itself parts innumerable. There is no such thing as the ten-thousandth part of an インチ; but there is of a mile or 直径 of the earth, which may be 示す by that インチ. When therefore I delineate a triangle on paper, and take one 味方する not above an インチ, for example, in length to be the 半径, this I consider as divided into 10,000 or 100,000 parts or more; for, though the ten-thousandth part of that line considered in itself is nothing at all, and その結果 may be neglected without an error or inconveniency, yet these 述べるd lines, 存在 only 示すs standing for greater 量s, whereof it may be the ten-thousandth part is very かなりの, it follows that, to 妨げる 著名な errors in practice, the 半径 must be taken of 10,000 parts or more.

128. From what has been said the 推論する／理由 is plain why, to the end any theorem become 全世界の／万国共通の in its use, it is necessary we speak of the lines 述べるd on paper as though they 含む／封じ込めるd parts which really they do not. In doing of which, if we 診察する the 事柄 完全に, we shall perhaps discover that we cannot conceive an インチ itself as consisting of, or 存在 divisible into, a thousand parts, but only some other line which is far greater than an インチ, and 代表するd by it; and that when we say a line is infinitely divisible, we must mean a line which is infinitely 広大な／多数の／重要な. What we have here 観察するd seems to be the 長，指導者 原因（となる） why, to suppose the infinite divisibility of finite 拡張 has been thought necessary in geometry.

129. The several absurdities and contradictions which flowed from this 誤った 原則 might, one would think, have been esteemed so many demonstrations against it. But, by I know not what logic, it is held that proofs a posteriori are not to be 認める against propositions relating to infinity, as though it were not impossible even for an infinite mind to reconcile contradictions; or as if anything absurd and repugnant could have a necessary connexion with truth or flow from it. But, whoever considers the 証拠不十分 of this pretence will think it was contrived on 目的 to humour the laziness of the mind which had rather acquiesce in an indolent scepticism than be at the 苦痛s to go through with a 厳しい examination of those 原則s it has ever embraced for true.

130. Of late the 憶測s about Infinities have run so high, and grown to such strange notions, as have occasioned no small scruples and 論争s の中で the geometers of the 現在の age. Some there are of 広大な／多数の／重要な 公式文書，認める who, not content with 持つ／拘留するing that finite lines may be divided into an infinite number of parts, do yet さらに先に 持続する that each of those infinitesimals is itself subdivisible into an infinity of other parts or infinitesimals of a second order, and so on 広告 infinitum. These, I say, 主張する there are infinitesimals of infinitesimals of infinitesimals, &c., without ever coming to an end; so that によれば them an インチ does not barely 含む／封じ込める an infinite number of parts, but an infinity of an infinity of an infinity 広告 infinitum of parts. Others there be who 持つ／拘留する all orders of infinitesimals below the first to be nothing at all; thinking it with good 推論する／理由 absurd to imagine there is any 肯定的な 量 or part of 拡張 which, though multiplied infinitely, can never equal the smallest given 拡張. And yet on the other 手渡す it seems no いっそう少なく absurd to think the square, cube or other 力／強力にする of a 肯定的な real root, should itself be nothing at all; which they who 持つ／拘留する infinitesimals of the first order, 否定するing all of the その後の orders, are 強いるd to 持続する.

131. Have we not therefore 推論する／理由 to 結論する they are both in the wrong, and that there is in 影響 no such thing as parts infinitely small, or an infinite number of parts 含む／封じ込めるd in any finite 量? But you will say that if this doctrine 得るs it will follow the very 創立／基礎s of Geometry are destroyed, and those 広大な／多数の／重要な men who have raised that science to so astonishing a 高さ, have been all the while building a 城 in the 空気／公表する. To this it may be replied that whatever is useful in geometry, and 促進するs the 利益 of human life, does still remain 会社／堅い and unshaken on our 原則s; that science considered as practical will rather receive advantage than any prejudice from what has been said. But to 始める，決める this in a 予定 light may be the proper 商売／仕事 of another place. For the 残り／休憩（する）, though it should follow that some of the more intricate and subtle parts of 思索的な Mathematics may be pared off without any prejudice to truth, yet I do not see what 損失 will be thence derived to mankind. On the contrary, I think it were 高度に to be wished that men of 広大な／多数の／重要な abilities and obstinate 使用／適用 would draw off their thoughts from those amusements, and 雇う them in the 熟考する／考慮する of such things as 嘘（をつく） nearer the 関心s of life, or have a more direct 影響（力） on the manners.

132. It is be said that several theorems undoubtedly true are discovered by methods in which infinitesimals are made use of, which could never have been if their 存在 含むd a contradiction in it; I answer that upon a 徹底的な examination it will not be 設立する that in any instance it is necessary to make use of or conceive infinitesimal parts of finite lines, or even 量s いっそう少なく than the 最小限 sensible; nay, it will be evident this is never done, it 存在 impossible.

133. By what we have 前提d, it is plain that very 非常に／多数の and important errors have taken their rise from those 誤った 原則s which were impugned in the foregoing parts of this treatise; and the opposites of those erroneous tenets at the same time appear to be most 実りの多い／有益な 原則s, from whence do flow innumerable consequences 高度に advantageous to true philosophy. 同様に as to 宗教. 特に 事柄, or the 絶対の 存在 of corporeal 反対するs, hath been shewn to be that wherein the most avowed and pernicious enemies of all knowledge, whether human or divine, have ever placed their 長，指導者 strength and 信用／信任. And surely, if by distinguishing the real 存在 of unthinking things from their 存在 perceived, and 許すing them a subsistance of their own out of the minds of spirits, no one thing is explained in nature, but on the contrary a 広大な／多数の／重要な many inexplicable difficulties arise; if the supposition of 事柄 is barely 不安定な, as not 存在 grounded on so much as one 選び出す／独身 推論する／理由; if its consequences cannot 耐える the light of examination and 解放する／自由な 調査, but 審査する themselves under the dark and general pretence of "infinites 存在 理解できない"; if withal the 除去 of this 事柄 be not …に出席するd with the least evil consequence; if it be not even 行方不明になるd in the world, but everything 同様に, nay much easier conceived without it; if, lastly, both Sceptics and Atheists are for ever silenced upon supposing only spirits and ideas, and this 計画／陰謀 of things is perfectly agreeable both to 推論する／理由 and 宗教: methinks we may 推定する／予想する it should be 認める and 堅固に embraced, though it were 提案するd only as an hypothesis, and the 存在 of 事柄 had been 許すd possible, which yet I think we have evidently 論証するd that it is not.

134. True it is that, in consequence of the foregoing 原則s, several 論争s and 憶測s which are esteemed no mean parts of learning, are 拒絶するd as useless. But, how 広大な／多数の／重要な a prejudice soever against our notions this may give to those who have already been 深く，強烈に engaged, and make large 前進するs in 熟考する／考慮するs of that nature, yet by others we hope it will not be thought any just ground of dislike to the 原則s and tenets herein laid 負かす／撃墜する, that they abridge the 労働 of 熟考する／考慮する, and make human sciences far more （疑いを）晴らす, compendious and attainable than they were before.

135. Having despatched what we ーするつもりであるd to say 関心ing the knowledge of ideas, the method we 提案するd leads us in the next place to 扱う／治療する of spirits - with regard to which, perhaps, human knowledge is not so deficient as is vulgarly imagined. The 広大な／多数の／重要な 推論する／理由 that is 割り当てるd for our 存在 thought ignorant of the nature of spirits is our not having an idea of it. But, surely it ought not to be looked on as a defect in a human understanding that it does not perceive the idea of spirit, if it is manifestly impossible there should be any such idea. And this if I mistake not has been 論証するd in section 27; to which I shall here 追加する that a spirit has been shewn to be the only 実体 or support wherein unthinking 存在s or ideas can 存在する; but that this 実体 which supports or perceives ideas should itself be an idea or like an idea is evidently absurd.

136. It will perhaps be said that we want a sense (as some have imagined) proper to know 実体s withal, which, if we had, we might know our own soul as we do a triangle. To this I answer, that, in 事例／患者 we had a new sense bestowed upon us, we could only receive その為に some new sensations or ideas of sense. But I believe nobody will say that what he means by the 条件 soul and 実体 is only some particular sort of idea or sensation. We may therefore infer that, all things duly considered, it is not more reasonable to think our faculties 欠陥のある, in that they do not furnish us with an idea of spirit or active thinking 実体, than it would be if we should 非難する them for not 存在 able to comprehend a 一連の会議、交渉／完成する square.

137. From the opinion that spirits are to be known after the manner of an idea or sensation have risen many absurd and heterodox tenets, and much scepticism about the nature of the soul. It is even probable that this opinion may have produced a 疑問 in some whether they had any soul at all 際立った from their 団体／死体 since upon 調査 they could not find they had an idea of it. That an idea which is inactive, and the 存在 whereof consists in 存在 perceived, should be the image or likeness of an スパイ／執行官 subsisting by itself, seems to need no other refutation than barely …に出席するing to what is meant by those words. But, perhaps you will say that though an idea cannot 似ている a spirit in its thinking, 事実上の／代理, or subsisting by itself, yet it may in some other 尊敬（する）・点s; and it is not necessary that an idea or image be in all 尊敬（する）・点s like the 初めの.

138. I answer, if it does not in those について言及するd, it is impossible it should 代表する it in any other thing. Do but leave out the 力／強力にする of willing, thinking, and perceiving ideas, and there remains nothing else wherein the idea can be like a spirit. For, by the word spirit we mean only that which thinks, wills, and perceives; this, and this alone, 構成するs the signification of the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語. If therefore it is impossible that any degree of those 力／強力にするs should be 代表するd in an idea, it is evident there can be no idea of a spirit.

139. But it will be 反対するd that, if there is no idea 示す by the 条件 soul, spirit, and 実体, they are wholly insignificant, or have no meaning in them. I answer, those words do mean or signify a real thing, which is neither an idea nor like an idea, but that which perceives ideas, and wills, and 推論する／理由s about them. What I am myself, that which I denote by the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 I, is the same with what is meant by soul or spiritual 実体. If it be said that this is only quarreling at a word, and that, since the すぐに significations of other 指名するs are by ありふれた 同意 called ideas, no 推論する／理由 can be 割り当てるd why that which is 示す by the 指名する spirit or soul may not partake in the same 呼称. I answer, all the unthinking 反対するs of the mind agree in that they are 完全に passive, and their 存在 consists only in 存在 perceived; 反して a soul or spirit is an active 存在, whose 存在 consists, not in 存在 perceived, but in perceiving ideas and thinking. It is therefore necessary, ーするために 妨げる equivocation and confounding natures perfectly 同意しないing and unlike, that we distinguish between spirit and idea. See sect. 27.

140. In a large sense, indeed, we may be said to have an idea or rather a notion of spirit; that is, we understand the meaning of the word, さもなければ we could not 断言する or 否定する anything of it. Moreover, as we conceive the ideas that are in the minds of other spirits by means of our own, which we suppose to be resemblances of them; so we know other spirits by means of our own soul- which in that sense is the image or idea of them; it having a like 尊敬（する）・点 to other spirits that blueness or heat by me perceived has to those ideas perceived by another.

141. It must not be supposed that they who 主張する the natural immortality of the soul are of opinion that it is 絶対 incapable of annihilation even by the infinite 力／強力にする of the Creator who first gave it 存在, but only that it is not liable to be broken or 解散させるd by the ordinary 法律s of nature or 動議. They indeed who 持つ／拘留する the soul of man to be only a thin 決定的な 炎上, or system of animal spirits, make it 死なせる／死ぬing and corruptible as the 団体／死体; since there is nothing more easily dissipated than such a 存在, which it is 自然に impossible should 生き残る the 廃虚 of the tabernacle wherein it is enclosed. And this notion has been greedily embraced and 心にいだくd by the worst part of mankind, as the most effectual antidote against all impressions of virtue and 宗教. But it has been made evident that 団体／死体s, of what でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる or texture soever, are barely passive ideas in the mind, which is more distant and heterogeneous from them than light is from 不明瞭. We have shewn that the soul is indivisible, incorporeal, unextended, and it is その結果 incorruptible. Nothing can be plainer than that the 動議s, changes, decays, and 解散s which we hourly see 生じる natural 団体／死体s (and which is what we mean by the course of nature) cannot かもしれない 影響する／感情 an active, simple, uncompounded 実体; such a 存在 therefore is indissoluble by the 軍隊 of nature; that is to say, "the soul of man is 自然に immortal."

142. After what has been said, it is, I suppose, plain that our souls are not to be known in the same manner as senseless, inactive 反対するs, or by way of idea. Spirits and ideas are things so wholly different, that when we say "they 存在する," "they are known," or the like, these words must not be thought to signify anything ありふれた to both natures. There is nothing alike or ありふれた in them: and to 推定する／予想する that by any multiplication or enlargement of our faculties we may be enabled to know a spirit as we do a triangle, seems as absurd as if we should hope to see a sound. This is inculcated because I imagine it may be of moment に向かって （疑いを）晴らすing several important questions, and 妨げるing some very dangerous errors 関心ing the nature of the soul. We may not, I think, 厳密に be said to have an idea of an active 存在, or of an 活動／戦闘, although we may be said to have a notion of them. I have some knowledge or notion of my mind, and its 行為／法令／行動するs about ideas, inasmuch as I know or understand what is meant by these words. What I know, that I have some notion of. I will not say that the 条件 idea and notion may not be used convertibly, if the world will have it so; but yet it conduceth to clearness and propriety that we distinguish things very different by different 指名するs. It is also to be 発言／述べるd that, all relations 含むing an 行為／法令／行動する of the mind, we cannot so 適切に be said to have an idea, but rather a notion of the relations and habitudes between things. But if, in the modern way, the word idea is 延長するd to spirits, and relations, and 行為／法令／行動するs, this is, after all, an 事件／事情／状勢 of 言葉の 関心.

143. It will not be amiss to 追加する, that the doctrine of abstract ideas has had no small 株 in （判決などを）下すing those sciences intricate and obscure which are 特に conversant about spiritual things. Men have imagined they could でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる abstract notions of the 力／強力にするs and 行為／法令／行動するs of the mind, and consider them prescinded 同様に from the mind or spirit itself, as from their 各々の 反対するs and 影響s. Hence a 広大な／多数の／重要な number of dark and あいまいな 条件, 推定するd to stand for abstract notions, have been introduced into metaphysics and morality, and from these have grown infinite distractions and 論争s amongst the learned.

144. But, nothing seems more to have 与える／捧げるd に向かって engaging men in 論争s and mistakes with regard to the nature and 操作／手術s of the mind, than the 存在 used to speak of those things ーに関して／ーの点でs borrowed from sensible ideas. For example, the will is 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語d the 動議 of the soul; this infuses a belief that the mind of man is as a ball in 動議, impelled and 決定するd by the 反対するs of sense, as やむを得ず as that is by the 一打／打撃 of a ゆすり. Hence arise endless scruples and errors of dangerous consequence in morality. All which, I 疑問 not, may be （疑いを）晴らすd, and truth appear plain, uniform, and 一貫した, could but philosophers be 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるd on to retire into themselves, and attentively consider their own meaning.

145. From what has been said, it is plain that we cannot know the 存在 of other spirits さもなければ than by their 操作／手術s, or the ideas by them excited in us. I perceive several 動議s, changes, and combinations of ideas, that 知らせる me there are 確かな particular スパイ／執行官s, like myself, which …を伴って them and 同意する in their 生産／産物. Hence, the knowledge I have of other spirits is not 即座の, as is the knowledge of my ideas; but depending on the 介入 of ideas, by me referred to スパイ／執行官s or spirits 際立った from myself, as 影響s or concomitant 調印するs.

146. But, though there be some things which 納得させる us human スパイ／執行官s are 関心d in producing them; yet it is evident to every one that those things which are called the 作品 of Nature, that is, the far greater part of the ideas or sensations perceived by us, are not produced by, or 扶養家族 on, the wills of men. There is therefore some other Spirit that 原因（となる）s them; since it is repugnant that they should subsist by themselves. See sect. 29. But, if we attentively consider the constant regularity, order, and concatenation of natural things, the surprising magnificence, beauty, and perfection of the larger, and the exquisite contrivance of the smaller parts of 創造, together with the exact harmony and correspondence of the whole, but above all the never-enough-admired 法律s of 苦痛 and 楽しみ, and the instincts or natural inclinations, appetites, and passions of animals; I say if we consider all these things, and at the same time …に出席する to the meaning and 輸入する of the せいにするs One, Eternal, Infinitely Wise, Good, and Perfect, we shall 明確に perceive that they belong to the aforesaid Spirit, "who 作品 all in all," and "by whom all things consist."

147. Hence, it is evident that God is known as certainly and すぐに as any other mind or spirit どれでも 際立った from ourselves. We may even 主張する that the 存在 of God is far more evidently perceived than the 存在 of men; because the 影響s of nature are infinitely more 非常に／多数の and かなりの than those ascribed to human スパイ／執行官s. There is not any one 示す that denotes a man, or 影響 produced by him, which does not more 堅固に evince the 存在 of that Spirit who is the Author of Nature. For, it is evident that in 影響する／感情ing other persons the will of man has no other 反対する than barely the 動議 of the 四肢s of his 団体／死体; but that such a 動議 should be …に出席するd by, or excite any idea in the mind of another, depends wholly on the will of the Creator. He alone it is who, "支持するing all things by the word of His 力／強力にする," 持続するs that intercourse between spirits whereby they are able to perceive the 存在 of each other. And yet this pure and （疑いを）晴らす light which enlightens every one is itself invisible.

148. It seems to be a general pretence of the unthinking herd that they cannot see God. Could we but see Him, say they, as we see a man, we should believe that He is, and believing obey His 命令（する）s. But 式のs, we need only open our 注目する，もくろむs to see the 君主 Lord of all things, with a more 十分な and （疑いを）晴らす 見解（をとる） than we do any one of our fellow-creatures. Not that I imagine we see God (as some will have it) by a direct and 即座の 見解（をとる）; or see corporeal things, not by themselves, but by seeing that which 代表するs them in the essence of God, which doctrine is, I must 自白する, to me 理解できない. But I shall explain my meaning;- A human spirit or person is not perceived by sense, as not 存在 an idea; when therefore we see the colour, size, 人物／姿／数字, and 動議s of a man, we perceive only 確かな sensations or ideas excited in our own minds; and these 存在 展示（する）d to our 見解（をとる） in sundry 際立った collections, serve to 示す out unto us the 存在 of finite and created spirits like ourselves. Hence it is plain we do not see a man- if by man is meant that which lives, moves, perceives, and thinks as we do- but only such a 確かな collection of ideas as directs us to think there is a 際立った 原則 of thought and 動議, like to ourselves, …を伴ってing and 代表するd by it. And after the same manner we see God; all the difference is that, 反して some one finite and 狭くする assemblage of ideas denotes a particular human mind, whithersoever we direct our 見解（をとる）, we do at all times and in all places perceive manifest 記念品s of the Divinity: everything we see, hear, feel, or anywise perceive by sense, 存在 a 調印する or 影響 of the 力／強力にする of God; as is our perception of those very 動議s which are produced by men.

149. It is therefore plain that nothing can be more evident to any one that is 有能な of the least reflexion than the 存在 of God, or a Spirit who is intimately 現在の to our minds, producing in them all that variety of ideas or sensations which continually 影響する／感情 us, on whom we have an 絶対の and entire dependence, in short "in whom we live, and move, and have our 存在." That the 発見 of this 広大な／多数の／重要な truth, which lies so 近づく and obvious to the mind, should be 達成するd to by the 推論する／理由 of so very few, is a sad instance of the stupidity and inattention of men, who, though they are surrounded with such （疑いを）晴らす manifestations of the Deity, are yet so little 影響する／感情d by them that they seem, as it were, blinded with 超過 of light.

150. But you will say, Hath Nature no 株 in the 生産／産物 of natural things, and must they be all ascribed to the 即座の and 単独の 操作／手術 of God? I answer, if by Nature is meant only the 明白な 一連の 影響s or sensations imprinted on our minds, によれば 確かな 直す／買収する，八百長をするd and general 法律s, then it is plain that Nature, taken in this sense, cannot produce anything at all. But, if by Nature is meant some 存在 際立った from God, 同様に as from the 法律s of nature, and things perceived by sense, I must 自白する that word is to me an empty sound without any intelligible meaning 別館d to it. Nature, in this acceptation, is a vain chimera, introduced by those heathens who had not just notions of the omnipresence and infinite perfection of God. But, it is more unaccountable that it should be received の中で Christians, professing belief in the 宗教上の Scriptures, which 絶えず ascribe those 影響s to the 即座の 手渡す of God that heathen philosophers are wont to impute to Nature. "The Lord He causeth the vapours to 上がる; He maketh 雷s with rain; He bringeth 前へ／外へ the 勝利，勝つd out of his treasures." Jerem. 10. 13. "He turneth the 影をつくる／尾行する of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night." Amos, 5. 8. "He visiteth the earth, and maketh it soft with にわか雨s: He blesseth the springing thereof, and crowneth the year with His goodness; so that the pastures are 着せる／賦与するd with flocks, and the valleys are covered over with corn." See Psalm 65. But, notwithstanding that this is the constant language of Scripture, yet we have I know not what aversion from believing that God 関心s Himself so nearly in our 事件／事情／状勢s. Fain would we suppose Him at a 広大な／多数の／重要な distance off, and 代用品，人 some blind unthinking 副 in His stead, though (if we may believe Saint Paul) "He be not far from every one of us."

151. It will, I 疑問 not, be 反対するd that the slow and 漸進的な methods 観察するd in the 生産／産物 of natural things do not seem to have for their 原因（となる） the 即座の 手渡す of an Almighty スパイ／執行官. Besides, monsters, untimely births, fruits 爆破d in the blossom, rains 落ちるing in 砂漠 places, 悲惨s 出来事/事件 to human life, and the like, are so many arguments that the whole でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる of nature is not すぐに actuated and superintended by a Spirit of infinite 知恵 and goodness. But the answer to this 反対 is in a good 手段 plain from sect. 62; it 存在 明白な that the aforesaid methods of nature are 絶対 necessary, ーするために working by the most simple and general 支配するs, and after a 安定した and 一貫した manner; which argues both the 知恵 and goodness of God. Such is the 人工的な contrivance of this mighty machine of nature that, whilst its 動議s and さまざまな phenomena strike on our senses, the 手渡す which actuates the whole is itself unperceivable to men of flesh and 血. "Verily" (saith the prophet) "thou art a God that hidest thyself." Isaiah, 45. 15. But, though the Lord 隠す Himself from the 注目する，もくろむs of the sensual and lazy, who will not be at the least expense of thought, yet to an unbiased and attentive mind nothing can be more plainly legible than the intimate presence of an All-wise Spirit, who fashions, 規制するs and 支えるs the whole system of 存在s. It is （疑いを）晴らす, from what we have どこかよそで 観察するd, that the operating によれば general and 明言する／公表するd 法律s is so necessary for our 指導／手引 in the 事件／事情／状勢s of life, and letting us into the secret of nature, that without it all reach and compass of thought, all human sagacity and design, could serve to no manner of 目的; it were even impossible there should be any such faculties or 力／強力にするs in the mind. See sect. 31. Which one consideration abundantly outbalances whatever particular inconveniences may thence arise.

152. We should その上の consider that the very blemishes and defects of nature are not without their use, in that they make an agreeable sort of variety, and augment the beauty of the 残り／休憩（する） of the 創造, as shades in a picture serve to 始める，決める off the brighter and more enlightened parts. We would likewise do 井戸／弁護士席 to 診察する whether our 税金ing the waste of seeds and embryos, and 偶発の 破壊 of 工場／植物s and animals, before they come to 十分な 成熟, as an imprudence in the Author of nature, be not the 影響 of prejudice 契約d by our familiarity with impotent and saving mortals. In man indeed a thrifty 管理／経営 of those things which he cannot procure without much 苦痛s and 産業 may be esteemed 知恵. But, we must not imagine that the inexplicably 罰金 machine of an animal or vegetable costs the 広大な／多数の／重要な Creator any more 苦痛s or trouble in its 生産／産物 than a pebble does; nothing 存在 more evident than that an Omnipotent Spirit can indifferently produce everything by a mere fiat or 行為／法令／行動する of His will. Hence, it is plain that the splendid profusion of natural things should not be 解釈する／通訳するd 証拠不十分 or prodigality in the スパイ／執行官 who produces them, but rather be looked on as an argument of the riches of His 力／強力にする.

153. As for the mixture of 苦痛 or uneasiness which is in the world, pursuant to the general 法律s of nature, and the 活動／戦闘s of finite, imperfect spirits, this, in the 明言する／公表する we are in at 現在の, is indispensably necessary to our 井戸／弁護士席-存在. But our prospects are too 狭くする. We take, for instance, the idea of some one particular 苦痛 into our thoughts, and account it evil; 反して, if we 大きくする our 見解（をとる）, so as to comprehend the さまざまな ends, connexions, and dependencies of things, on what occasions and in what 割合s we are 影響する／感情d with 苦痛 and 楽しみ, the nature of human freedom, and the design with which we are put into the world; we shall be 軍隊d to 認める that those particular things which, considered in themselves, appear to be evil, have the nature of good, when considered as linked with the whole system of 存在s.

154. From what has been said, it will be manifest to any considering person, that it is 単に for want of attention and comprehensiveness of mind that there are any favourers of Atheism or the Manichean Heresy to be 設立する. Little and unreflecting souls may indeed burlesque the 作品 of Providence, the beauty and order whereof they have not capacity, or will not be at the 苦痛s, to comprehend; but those who are masters of any justness and extent of thought, and are withal used to 反映する, can never 十分に admire the divine traces of 知恵 and Goodness that 向こうずね throughout the Economy of Nature. But what truth is there which shineth so 堅固に on the mind that by an aversion of thought, a wilful shutting of the 注目する，もくろむs, we may not escape seeing it? Is it therefore to be wondered at, if the generality of men, who are ever 意図 on 商売／仕事 or 楽しみ, and little used to 直す／買収する，八百長をする or open the 注目する，もくろむ of their mind, should not have all that 有罪の判決 and 証拠 of the 存在 of God which might be 推定する／予想するd in reasonable creatures?

155. We should rather wonder that men can be 設立する so stupid as to neglect, than that neglecting they should be unconvinced of such an evident and momentous truth. And yet it is to be 恐れるd that too many of parts and leisure, who live in Christian countries, are, 単に through a supine and dreadful 怠慢，過失, sunk into Atheism. Since it is downright impossible that a soul pierced and enlightened with a 徹底的な sense of the omnipresence, holiness, and 司法（官） of that Almighty Spirit should 固執する in a remorseless 違反 of His 法律s. We ought, therefore, 真面目に to meditate and dwell on those important points; that so we may 達成する 有罪の判決 without all scruple "that the 注目する，もくろむs of the Lord are in every place beholding the evil and the good; that He is with us and keepeth us in all places whither we go, and giveth us bread to eat and raiment to put on"; that He is 現在の and conscious to our innermost thoughts; and that we have a most 絶対の and 即座の dependence on Him. A （疑いを）晴らす 見解（をとる） of which 広大な／多数の／重要な truths cannot choose but fill our hearts with an awful circumspection and 宗教上の 恐れる, which is the strongest incentive to Virtue, and the best guard against 副／悪徳行為.

156. For, after all, what deserves the first place in our 熟考する／考慮するs is the consideration of God and our 義務; which to 促進する, as it was the main drift and design of my 労働s, so shall I esteem them altogether useless and ineffectual if, by what I have said, I cannot 奮起させる my readers with a pious sense of the Presence of God; and, having shewn the falseness or vanity of those barren 憶測s which make the 長，指導者 雇用 of learned men, the better 配置する／処分する／したい気持ちにさせる them to reverence and embrace the salutary truths of the Gospel, which to know and to practice is the highest perfection of human nature.

The End