never so certain, that neither body nor motion can exist without space. But whether any one will take space to be only a relation resulting from the existence of other beings at a distance, or whether they will think the words of the most knowing King Solomon, "The heaven, and the heaven of heavens, cannot contain thee;" or those more emphatical ones of the inspired philosopher, St. Paul, "In him we live, move, and have our being;" are to be understood in a literal sense, I leave every one to consider; only our idea of space is, I think, such as I have mentioned, and distinct from that of body. For whether we consider, in matter itself, the distance of its coherent solid parts, and call it, in respect of those solid parts, extension; or, whether considering it as lying between the extremities of any body in its several dimensions, we call it length, breadth, and thickness; or else considering it as lying between any two bodies, or positive beings, without any consideration whether there be any matter or no between, we call it distance. However named or considered, it is always the same uniform simple idea of space, taken from objects about which our senses have been conversant, whereof having settled ideas in our minds, we can revive, repeat, and add them one to another, as often as we will, and consider the space or distance so imagined, either as filled with solid parts, so that another body cannot come there without displacing and thrusting out the body that was there before; or else as void of solidity, so that a body of equal dimensions to that empty or pure space, may be placed in it without the removing or expulsion of any thing that was there. But to avoid confusion in discourses concerning this matter, it were possibly to be wished, that the name extension were applied only to matter, or the distance of the extremities of particular bodies; and the term expansion to space in general, with or without solid matter possessing it, so as to say, space is expanded, and body extended. But in this every one has liberty; I propose it only for the more clear and distinct way of speaking.

§. 28. Men differ little in clear simple ideas.-The knowing precisely what our words stand for, would, I imagine, in this, as well as a great many other cases, quickly end the dispute. For I am apt to think, that men, when they come to examine them, find their simple ideas all generally to agree, though, in discourse with one another, they, perhaps, confound one another with different names. I imagine that men who abstract their thoughts, and do well examine the ideas of their own minds, cannot much differ in thinking; however they may perplex themselves with words, according to the way of speaking of the

amongst unthinking men, who examine not scrupulously and carefully their own ideas, and strip them not from the marks men use for them, but confound them with words, there must be endless dispute, wrangling, and jargon, especially if they be learned bookish men, devoted to some sect, and accustomed to the language of it; and have learned to talk after others. But if it should happen, that any two thinking men should really have different ideas, I do not see how they could discourse or argue one with another. Here I must not be mistaken to think that every floating imagination in men's brains, is presently of that sort of ideas I speak of. It is not easy for the mind to put off those confused notions and prejudices it has imbibed from custom, inadvertency, and common conversation; it requires pains and assiduity to examine its ideas, until it resolves them into those clear and distinct simple ones out of which they are compounded; and to see which, amongst its simple ones, have, or have not, a necessary connection and dependence one upon another. Until a man doth this in the primary and original notion of things, he builds upon floating and uncertain principles, and will often find himself at a loss.

CHAPTER XIV.

OF DURATION, AND ITS SIMPLE MODES.

§. 1. Duration is fleeting extension.-There is another sort of distance, or length, the idea whereof we get, not from the permanent parts of space, but from the fleeting and perpetually perishing parts of succession. This we call duration, the simple modes whereof are any different lengths of it, whereof we have distinct ideas, as hours, days, years, &c., time and eternity.

§. 2. Its idea from reflection on the train of our ideas.-The answer of a great man, to one who asked what time was, Si non rogas intelligo (which amounts to this; the more I set myself to think of it, the less I understand it), might, perhaps, persuade one, that time, which reveals all other things, is itself not to be discovered. Duration, time, and eternity, are not, without reason, thought to have something very abstruse in their nature. But however remote these may seem from our comprehension, yet if we trace them right to their originals, I doubt not but one of those sources of all our knowledge, viz., sensation and reflection, will be able to furnish us with these ideas, as clear and distinct as many other which are thought much less obscure;

and we shall find, that the idea of eternity itself, is derived from the same common original with the rest of our ideas.

§. 3. To understand time and eternity aright, we ought, with attention, to consider what idea it is we have of duration, and how we came by it. It is evident to any one who will but observe what passes in his own mind, that there is a train of ideas which constantly succeed one another in his understanding, as long as he is awake. Reflection on these appearances of several ideas, one after another, in our minds, is that which furnishes us with the idea of succession; and the distance between any parts of that succession, or between the appearance of any two ideas in our minds, is that we call duration. For whilst we are thinking, or whilst we receive successively several ideas in our minds, we know that we do exist; and so we call the existence, or the continuation of the existence of ourselves, or any thing else, commensurate to the succession of any ideas in our minds, the duration of ourselves, or any such other thing coexistent with our thinking.

§. 4. That we have our notion of succession and duration, from this original, viz., from reflection on the train of ideas which we find to appear, one after another, in our own minds, seems plain to me, in that we have no perception of duration, but by considering the train of ideas that take their turns in our understandings. When that succession of ideas ceases, our perception of duration ceases with it; which every one clearly experiments in himself, whilst he sleeps soundly, whether an hour or a day, a month or a year; of which duration of things, while he sleeps, or thinks not, he has no perception at all, but it is quite lost to him; and the moment wherein he leaves off to think, until the moment he begins to think again, seems to him to have no distance. And so I doubt not but it would be to a waking man, if it were possible for him to keep only one idea in his mind, without variation, and the succession of others; and we see, that one who fixes his thoughts very intently on one thing, so as to take but little notice of the succession of ideas that pass in his mind, whilst he is taken up with that earnest contemplation, lets slip out of his account a good part of that duration, and thinks that time shorter than it is. But if sleep commonly unites the distant parts of duration, it is because, during that time, we have no succession of ideas in our minds. For, if a man, during his sleep, dreams, and variety of ideas make themselves perceptible in his mind one after another, he hath, then, during such a dreaming, a sense of duration, and of the length of it. By which it is to me very clear, that men derive their ideas of duration from their reflec

tions on the train of the ideas they observe to succeed one another in their own understandings; without which observation, they can have no notion of duration, whatever may happen in the world.

§. 5. The idea of duration applicable to things whilst we sleep. Indeed, a man having, from reflecting on the succession and number of his own thoughts, got the notion or idea of duration, he can apply that notion to things which exist while he does not think; as he that has got the idea of extension from bodies by his sight or touch, can apply it to distances, where no body is seen or felt. And, therefore, though a man has no perception of the length of duration, which passed whilst he slept or thought not, yet having observed the revolution of days and nights, and found the length of their duration to be, in appearance, regular and constant, he can, upon the supposition that that revolution has proceeded, after the same manner, whilst he was asleep, or thought not, as it used to do at other times; he can, I say, imagine and make allowance for the length of duration, whilst he slept. But if Adam and Eve (when they were alone in the world) instead of their ordinary night's sleep, had passed the whole twenty-four hours in one continued sleep, the duration of that twenty-four hours had been irrecoverably lost to them, and been for ever left out of their account of time.

§. 6. The idea of succession not from motion. Thus by reflecting on the appearing of various ideas one after another in our understandings, we get the notion of succession; which if any one would think we did rather get from our observation of motion by our senses, he will, perhaps, be of my mind, when he considers, that even motion produces in his mind an idea of succession no otherwise than as it produces there a continued train of distinguishable ideas. For a man looking upon a body really moving, perceives yet no motion at all, unless that motion produces a constant train of successive ideas, v. g. a man becalmed at sea, out of sight of land, in a fair day, may look on the sun, or sea, or ship, a whole hour together, and perceive no motion at all in either; though it be certain that two, and perhaps all of them, have moved, during that time, a great way; but as soon as he perceives either of them to have changed distance with some other body, as soon as this motion produces any new idea in him, then he perceives that there has been motion. But wherever a man is, with all things at rest about him, without perceiving any motion at all; if during this hour of quiet he has been thinking, he will perceive the various ideas of his own thoughts, in his own mind, appearing one after another, and thereby observe and find succession, where he could observe no motion.

§. 7. And this, I think, is the reason why motions very slow, though they are constant, are not perceived by us; because, in their remove from one sensible part towards another, their change of distance is so slow, that it causes no new ideas in us, but a good while one after another; and so not causing a constant train of new ideas to follow one another immediately in our minds, we have no perception of motion, which consisting in a constant succession, we cannot perceive that succession, without a constant succession of varying ideas arising from it.

§. 8. On the contrary, things that move so swift, as not to affect the senses distinctly with several distinguishable distances of their motion, and so cause not any train of ideas in the mind, are not also perceived to move. For any thing that moves round about in a circle, in less time than our ideas are wont to succeed one another in our minds, is not perceived to move; but seems to be a perfect entire circle of that matter or colour, and not a part of a circle in motion.

§. 9. The train of ideas has a certain degree of quickness.Hence I leave it to others to judge, whether it be not probable, that our ideas do, whilst we are awake, succeed one another in our minds at certain distances, not much unlike the images in the inside of a lanthorn, turned round by the heat of a candle. This appearance of theirs in train, though, perhaps, it may be sometimes faster, and sometimes slower; yet, I guess, varies not very much in a waking man: there seem to be certain bounds to the quickness and slowness of the succession of those ideas one to another in our minds, beyond which they can neither delay nor hasten.

§. 10. The reason I have for this odd conjecture, is from observing, that in the impressions made upon any of our senses, we can, but to a certain degree, perceive any succession; which if exceeding quick, the sense of succession is lost, even in cases where it is evident that there is a real succession. Let a cannon bullet pass through a room, and in its way take with it any limb, or fleshy parts of a man; it is as clear as any demonstration can be, that it must strike successively the two sides of the room. It is also evident, that it must touch one part of the flesh first, and another after, and so in succession: and yet, I believe, nobody, who ever felt the pain of such a shot, or heard the blow against the two distant walls, could perceive any succession, either in the pain or sound of so swift a stroke. Such a part of duration as this, wherein we perceive no succession, is that which we call an instant; and is that which takes up the time of only one idea in our minds, without the succession of another, wherein, therefore, we perceive no succession at all.