fication; v. g., the ship has necessary stores. Necessary and stores are both relative words; one having a relation to the accomplishing the voyage intended, and the other to future use. All which relations, how they are confined to and terminate in ideas derived from sensation or reflection, is too obvious to need any explication. 1. Wherein Identity consists.-ANOTHER occasion the mind often takes of comparing, is the very being of things; when, considering anything as existing at any determined time and place, we compare it with itself existing at another time, land thereon form the ideas of identity and diversity. When we see anything to be in any place in any instant of time, we are sure (be it what it will) that it is that very thing, and not another, which at that same time exists in another place, how like and undistinguishable soever it may be in all other respects: and in this consists identity, when the ideas it is attributed to vary not at all from what they were that moment wherein we consider their former existence, and to which we compare the present. For we never finding, nor conceiving it possible, that two things of the same kind should exist in the same place at the same time, we rightly conclude, that, whatever exists anywhere at any time, excludes all of the same kind, and is there itself alone. When therefore we demand whether anything be the same or no, it refers always to something that existed such a time in such a place, which it was certain at that instant was the same with itself, and no other. From whence it follows, that one thing cannot have two beginnings of existence, nor two things one beginning; it being impossible for two things of the same kind to be or exist in the same instant, in the very same place, or one and the same thing in different places. That, therefore, that had one beginning, is the same thing; * Most readers, possibly, are acquainted with Bishop Butler's Dissertation on the subject of Personal Identity: (Bohn's ed. p. 328:) and it is certainly worth while to compare the speculations of these two distinguished writers; particularly as Dr. Butler is as remarkable for perspicuity and philosophical acumen as for piety.-ED. and that which had a different beginning in time and place from that, is not the same, but diverse.* That which has made the difficulty about this relation has been the little care and attention used in having precise notions of the things to which it is attributed. 2. Identity of Substances.-We have the ideas but of three sorts of substances: 1. God. 2. Finite intelligences. 3. Bodies. First, God is without beginning, eternal, unalterable, and everywhere; and therefore concerning his identity there can be no doubt. Secondly, Finite spirits having had each its determinate time and place of beginning to exist, the relation to that time and place will always determine to each of them its identity, as long as it exists. Thirdly, The same will hold of every particle of matter, to which no addition or subtraction of matter being made, it is the same. For, though these three sorts of substances, as we term them, do not exclude one another out of the same place, yet we cannot conceive but that they must necessarily each of them exclude any of the same kind out of the same place; or else the notions and names of identity and diversity would be in vain, and there could be no such distinctions of substances, or anything else one from another. For example: could two bodies be in the same place at the same time, then those two parcels of matter must be one and the same, take them great or little ; nay, all bodies must be one and the same. For, by the same reason that two particles of matter may be in one place, all bodies may be in one place; which, when it can be supposed, takes away the distinction of identity and diversity of one * Exactly similar are the arguments of Hobbes, "Dictum hactenus est de corpore simpliciter, et accidentibus communibus,_ magnitudine, motu, quiete, actione, passione, potentia, possibili, etc. Descendendum jam esset ad accidentia illa, quibus unum corpus ab alio distinguitur, nisi prius declarandum esset, quid sit ipsum distingui et non distingui, nimirum quod sit idem et diversum; nam etiam hoc omnibus corporibus commune est ut unum ab alio distingui, sive diversum esse possit. Deferre autem inter se duo corpora dicuntur, cum de uno eorum dicitur aliquid quod de altero dici non potest eodem tempore. Imprimis autem, duo corpora idem non esse manifestum est; siquidem enim duo sint in duobus locis sunt eodem tempore, quod autem idem est, eodem tempore in eodem loco est. Omnia ergo corpora differunt inter se numero, nimirum ut unum et alterum; ita ut idem, et numero differentia, sunt nomina contradictorie opposita, etc. (Phil. Prim. c. xi. § 1, 2, et seq.)-ED. and more, and renders it ridiculous. But it being a contradiction that two or more should be one, identity and diversity are relations and ways of comparing well founded, and of use to the understanding. Identity of Modes.-All other things being but modes or relations ultimately terminated in substances, the identity and diversity of each particular existence of them too will be by the same way determined: only as to things whose existence is in succession, such as are the actions of finite beings, v. g., motion and thought, both which consist in a continued train of succession: concerning their diversity there can be no question; because each perishing the moment it begins, they cannot exist in different times, or in different places, as permanent beings can at different times exist in distant places; and therefore no motion or thought, considered as at different times, can be the same, each part thereof having a different beginning of existence. 3. Principium Individuationis.—From what has been said, it is easy to discover what is so much inquired after, the principium individuationis; and that, it is plain, is existence itself, which determines a being of any sort to a particular time and place, incommunicable to two beings of the same kind. This, though it seems easier to conceive in simple substances or modes, yet, when reflected on, is not more difficult in compound ones, if care be taken to what it is applied: v. g., let us suppose an atom, i. e., a continued body under one immutable superfices, existing in a determined time and place; it is evident, that, considered in any instant of its existence, it is in that instant the same with itself. For, being at that instant what it is, and nothing else, it is the same, and so must continue as long as its existence is continued; for so long it will be the same, and no other. In like manner, if two or more atoms be joined together into the same mass, every one of those atoms will be the same, by the foregoing rule: and whilst they exist united together, the mass, consisting of the same atoms, must be the same mass, or the same body, let the parts be ever so differently jumbled. But if one of these atoms be taken away, or one new one added, it is no longer the same mass or the same body. In the state of living creatures, their identity depends not on a mass of the same particles, but on something else. For in them the variation of great parcels of matter alters not the identity: an oak growing from a plant to a great tree, and then lopped, is still the same oak; and a colt grown up to a horse, sometimes fat, sometimes lean, is all the while the same horse: though, in both these cases, there may be a manifest change of the parts; so that truly they are not either of them the same masses of matter, though they be truly one of them the same oak, and the other the same horse. The reason whereof is, that, in these two cases, a mass of matter, and a living body, identity is not applied to the same thing. 4. Identity of Vegetables.-We must therefore consider wherein an oak differs from a mass of matter, and that seems to me to be in this, that the one is only the cohesion of particles of matter any how united, the other such a disposition of them as constitutes the parts of an oak; and such an organization of those parts as is fit to receive and distribute nourishment, so as to continue and frame the wood, bark, and leaves, &c., of an oak, in which consists the vegetable life. That being then one plant which has such an organization of parts in one coherent body, partaking of one common life, it continues to be the same plant as long as it partakes of the same life, though that life be communicated to new particles of matter vitally united to the living plant, in a like continued organization conformable to that sort of plants. For this organization being at any one instant in any one collection of matter, is in that particular concrete distinguished from all other, and is that individual life, which existing constantly from that moment both forwards and backwards, in the same continuity of insensibly succeeding parts united to the living body of the plant, it has that identity which makes the same plant, and all the parts of it, parts of the same plant, during all the time that they exist united in that continued organization, which is fit to convey that common life to all the parts so united.* *On this, Butler observes, that, "in a loose and popular sense, the life, and the organization, and the plant, are justly said to be the same, notwithstanding the perpetual change of the parts. But, in a strict and philosophical manner of speech, no man, no being, no mode of being, no anything, can be the same with that with which it hath indeed nothing the same. (Dissertation on Personal Identity, &c., Bohn's ed. p. 330.)-ED. 5. Identity of Animals.-The case is not so much different in brutes, but that any one may hence see what makes an animal and continues it the same. Something we have like this in machines, and may serve to illustrate it. For example, what is a watch? It is plain it is nothing but a fit organization or construction of parts to a certain end, which, when a sufficient force is added to it, it is capable to attain. If we would suppose this machine one continued body, all whose organized parts were repaired, increased, or diminished by a constant addition or separation of insensible parts, with one common life, we should have something very much like the body of an animal;* with this difference, that, in an animal the fitness of the organization, and the motion wherein life consists, begin together, the motion coming from within; but in machines, the force coming sensibly from without, is often away when the organ is in order, and well fitted to receive it. 6. The Identity of Man.-This also shows wherein the identity of the same man consists; viz., in nothing but a participation of the same continued life, by constantly fleeting particles of matter, in succession vitally united to the same organized body. He that shall place the identity of man in anything else, but like that of other animals, in one fitly organized body, taken in any one instant, and from thence continued, under one organization of life, in several successively fleeting particles of matter united to it, will find it Descartes, pushing this idea a little further, affirmed boldly that animals are but living machines. "Descartes distinguait le principe de la vie du principe de l'ame. Le premier est dans la nature, la cause de tous les mouvemens vegetaux et animaux; l'autre est celle de la pensée et de la connaissance; le dernier n'appartient qu'à l'homme, et ne se rencontre pas chez les animaux. De là la célèbre assertion de Descartes, que les animaux sont seulement des machines vivantes, qui n'ont ni le sentiment, ni la conception, ni encore moins la volonté." (Buhle, Hist. de la Phil. Mod. 1. iii. p. 15.) Perreira, on the other hand, sought to raise animals to the level of man, by affirming them to be possessed of immortal souls. (Bayle, Dict. Hist. et Crit., art. Perreira.) This opinion seems to have prevailed among mankind from the earliest ages; since we find Homer representing Orion chasing the souls of stags and other animals, over the plains of hell. The North American Indian, too, thinks, "Admitted to that equal sky, |