38。Eachabstractidea，withanametoit，makesanominalessence。OnethingIdoubtnotbutwillseemverystrangeinthisdoctrine，whichis，thatfromwhathasbeensaiditwillfollow，thateachabstractidea，withanametoit，makesadistinctspecies。Butwhocanhelpit，iftruthwillhaveitso？Forsoitmustremaintillsomebodycanshowusthespeciesofthingslimitedanddistinguishedbysomethingelse；andletusseethatgeneraltermssignifynotourabstractideas，butsomethingdifferentfromthem。I
wouldfainknowwhyashockandahoundarenotasdistinctspeciesasaspanielandanelephant。Wehavenootherideaofthedifferentessenceofanelephantandaspaniel，thanwehaveofthedifferentessenceofashockandahound；alltheessentialdifference，wherebyweknowanddistinguishthemonefromanother，consistingonlyinthedifferentcollectionofsimpleideas，towhichwehavegiventhosedifferentnames。
39。Howgeneraandspeciesarerelatedtonaming。Howmuchthemakingofspeciesandgeneraisinordertogeneralnames；andhowmuchgeneralnamesarenecessary，ifnottothebeing，yetatleasttothecompletingofaspecies，andmakingitpassforsuch，willappear，besideswhathasbeensaidaboveconcerningiceandwater，inaveryfamiliarexample。Asilentandastrikingwatcharebutonespeciestothosewhohavebutonenameforthem:buthethathasthenamewatchforone，andclockfortheother，anddistinctcomplexideastowhichthosenamesbelong，tohimtheyaredifferentspecies。Itwillbesaidperhaps，thattheinwardcontrivanceandconstitutionisdifferentbetweenthesetwo，whichthewatchmakerhasaclearideaof。
Andyetitisplaintheyarebutonespeciestohim，whenhehasbutonenameforthem。Forwhatissufficientintheinwardcontrivancetomakeanewspecies？Therearesomewatchesthataremadewithfourwheels，otherswithfive；isthisaspecificdifferencetotheworkman？Somehavestringsandphysies，andothersnone；somehavethebalanceloose，andothersregulatedbyaspiralspring，andothersbyhogs’bristles。Areanyoralloftheseenoughtomakeaspecificdifferencetotheworkman，thatknowseachoftheseandseveralotherdifferentcontrivancesintheinternalconstitutionsofwatches？
Itiscertaineachofthesehatharealdifferencefromtherest；
butwhetheritbeanessential，aspecificdifferenceorno，relatesonlytothecomplexideatowhichthenamewatchisgiven:aslongastheyallagreeintheideawhichthatnamestandsfor，andthatnamedoesnotasagenericalnamecomprehenddifferentspeciesunderit，theyarenotessentiallynorspecificallydifferent。Butifanyonewillmakeminuterdivisions，fromdifferencesthatheknowsintheinternalframeofwatches，andtosuchprecisecomplexideasgivenamesthatshallprevail；theywillthenbenewspecies，tothemwhohavethoseideaswithnamestothem，andcanbythosedifferencesdistinguishwatchesintotheseseveralsorts；andthenwatchwillbeagenericalname。Butyettheywouldbenodistinctspeciestomenignorantofclock-work，andtheinwardcontrivancesofwatches，whohadnootherideabuttheoutwardshapeandbulk，withthemarkingofthehoursbythehand。Fortothemallthoseothernameswouldbebutsynonymoustermsforthesameidea，andsignifynomore，nornootherthingbutawatch。JustthusIthinkitisinnaturalthings。
Nobodywilldoubtthatthewheelsorsprings(ifImaysosay)within，aredifferentinarationalmanandachangeling；nomorethanthatthereisadifferenceintheframebetweenadrillandachangeling。
Butwhetheroneorboththesedifferencesbeessentialorspecifical，isonlytobeknowntousbytheiragreementordisagreementwiththecomplexideathatthenamemanstandsfor:forbythatalonecanitbedeterminedwhetherone，orboth，orneitherofthosebeaman。
40。Speciesofartificialthingslessconfusedthannatural。Fromwhathasbeenbeforesaid，wemayseethereasonwhy，inthespeciesofartificialthings，thereisgenerallylessconfusionanduncertaintythaninnatural。Becauseanartificialthingbeingaproductionofman，whichtheartificerdesigned，andthereforewellknowstheideaof，thenameofitissupposedtostandfornootheridea，nortoimportanyotheressence，thanwhatiscertainlytobeknown，andeasyenoughtobeapprehended。Fortheideaoressenceoftheseveralsortsofartificialthings，consistingforthemostpartinnothingbutthedeterminatefigureofsensibleparts，andsometimesmotiondependingthereon，whichtheartificerfashionsinmatter，suchashefindsforhisturn；itisnotbeyondthereachofourfacultiestoattainacertainideathereof；andsosettlethesignificationofthenameswherebythespeciesofartificialthingsaredistinguished，withlessdoubt，obscurity，andequivocationthanwecaninthingsnatural，whosedifferencesandoperationsdependuponcontrivancesbeyondthereachofourdiscoveries。
41。Artificialthingsofdistinctspecies。ImustbeexcusedhereifIthinkartificialthingsareofdistinctspeciesaswellasnatural:sinceIfindtheyareasplainlyandorderlyrankedintosorts，bydifferentabstractideas，withgeneralnamesannexedtothem，asdistinctonefromanotherasthoseofnaturalsubstances。Forwhyshouldwenotthinkawatchandpistolasdistinctspeciesonefromanother，asahorseandadog；theybeingexpressedinourmindsbydistinctideas，andtoothersbydistinctappellations？
42。Substancesalone，ofallourseveralsortsofideas，havepropernames。Thisisfurthertobeobservedconcerningsubstances，thattheyaloneofallourseveralsortsofideashaveparticularorpropernames，wherebyoneonlyparticularthingissignified。Becauseinsimpleideas，modes，andrelations，itseldomhappensthatmenhaveoccasiontomentionoftenthisorthatparticularwhenitisabsent。
Besides，thegreatestpartofmixedmodes，beingactionswhichperishintheirbirth，arenotcapableofalastingduration，assubstanceswhicharetheactors；andwhereinthesimpleideasthatmakeupthecomplexideasdesignedbythenamehavealastingunion。
43。Difficulttoleadanotherbywordsintothethoughtsofthingsstrippedofthoseabstractideaswegivethem。Imustbegpardonofmyreaderforhavingdweltsolonguponthissubject，andperhapswithsomeobscurity。ButIdesireitmaybeconsidered，howdifficultitistoleadanotherbywordsintothethoughtsofthings，strippedofthosespecificaldifferenceswegivethem:whichthings，ifInamenot，Isaynothing；andifIdonamethem，Itherebyrankthemintosomesortorother，andsuggesttothemindtheusualabstractideaofthatspecies；andsocrossmypurpose。For，totalkofaman，andtolayby，atthesametime，theordinarysignificationofthenameman，whichisourcomplexideausuallyannexedtoit；andbidthereaderconsiderman，asheisinhimself，andasheisreallydistinguishedfromothersinhisinternalconstitution，orrealessence，thatis，bysomethingheknowsnotwhat，looksliketrifling:
andyetthusonemustdowhowouldspeakofthesupposedrealessencesandspeciesofthings，asthoughttobemadebynature，ifitbebutonlytomakeitunderstood，thatthereisnosuchthingsignifiedbythegeneralnameswhichsubstancesarecalledby。Butbecauseitisdifficultbyknownfamiliarnamestodothis，givemeleavetoendeavourbyanexampletomakethedifferentconsiderationthemindhasofspecificnamesandideasalittlemoreclear；andtoshowhowthecomplexideasofmodesarereferredsometimestoarchetypesinthemindsofotherintelligentbeings，or，whichisthesame，tothesignificationannexedbyotherstotheirreceivednames；andsometimestonoarchetypesatall。Givemeleavealsotoshowhowthemindalwaysrefersitsideasofsubstances，eithertothesubstancesthemselves，ortothesignificationoftheirnames，astothearchetypes；andalsotomakeplainthenatureofspeciesorsortingofthings，asapprehendedandmadeuseofbyus；andoftheessencesbelongingtothosespecies:whichisperhapsofmoremomenttodiscovertheextentandcertaintyofourknowledgethanweatfirstimagine。
44。Instancesofmixedmodesnamedkinneahandniouph。LetussupposeAdam，inthestateofagrownman，withagoodunderstanding，butinastrangecountry，withallthingsnewandunknownabouthim；andnootherfacultiestoattaintheknowledgeofthembutwhatoneofthisagehasnow。HeobservesLamechmoremelancholythanusual，andimaginesittobefromasuspicionhehasofhiswifeAdah，(whomhemostardentlyloved)thatshehadtoomuchkindnessforanotherman。AdamdiscoursesthesehisthoughtstoEve，anddesireshertotakecarethatAdahcommitnotfolly:andinthesediscourseswithEvehemakesuseofthesetwonewwordskinneahandniouph。Intime，Adam’smistakeappears，forhefindsLamech’stroubleproceededfromhavingkilledaman:butyetthetwonameskinneahandniouph，(theonestandingforsuspicioninahusbandofhiswife’sdisloyaltytohim；andtheotherfortheactofcommittingdisloyalty)，lostnottheirdistinctsignifications。Itisplainthen，thathereweretwodistinctcomplexideasofmixedmodes，withnamestothem，twodistinctspeciesofactionsessentiallydifferent；Iaskwhereinconsistedtheessencesofthesetwodistinctspeciesofactions？Anditisplainitconsistedinaprecisecombinationofsimpleideas，differentinonefromtheother。Iask，whetherthecomplexideainAdam’smind，whichhecalledkinneah，wereadequateornot？Anditisplainitwas；foritbeingacombinationofsimpleideas，whichhe，withoutanyregardtoanyarchetype，withoutrespecttoanythingasapattern，voluntarilyputtogether，abstracted，andgavethenamekinneahto，toexpressinshorttoothers，bythatonesound，allthesimpleideascontainedandunitedinthatcomplexone；itmustnecessarilyfollowthatitwasanadequateidea。Hisownchoicehavingmadethatcombination，ithadallinitheintendeditshould，andsocouldnotbutbeperfect，couldnotbutbeadequate；itbeingreferredtonootherarchetypewhichitwassupposedtorepresent。
45。Thesewords，kinneahandniouph，bydegreesgrewintocommonuse，andthenthecasewassomewhataltered。Adam’schildrenhadthesamefaculties，andtherebythesamepowerthathehad，tomakewhatcomplexideasofmixedmodestheypleasedintheirownminds；toabstractthem，andmakewhatsoundstheypleasedthesignsofthem:
buttheuseofnamesbeingtomakeourideaswithinusknowntoothers，thatcannotbedone，butwhenthesamesignstandsforthesameideaintwowhowouldcommunicatetheirthoughtsanddiscoursetogether。Those，therefore，ofAdam’schildren，thatfoundthesetwowords，kinneahandniouph，infamiliaruse，couldnottakethemforinsignificantsounds，butmustneedsconcludetheystoodforsomething；forcertainideas，abstractideas。theybeinggeneralnames；whichabstractideasweretheessencesofthespeciesdistinguishedbythosenames。If，therefore，theywouldusethesewordsasnamesofspeciesalreadyestablishedandagreedon，theywereobligedtoconformtheideasintheirminds，signifiedbythesenames，totheideasthattheystoodforinothermen’sminds，astotheirpatternsandarchetypes；andthenindeedtheirideasofthesecomplexmodeswereliabletobeinadequate，asbeingveryapt(especiallythosethatconsistedofcombinationsofmanysimpleideas)
nottobeexactlyconformabletotheideasinothermen’sminds，usingthesamenames；thoughforthistherebeusuallyaremedyathand，whichistoaskthemeaningofanywordweunderstandnotofhimthatusesit:itbeingasimpossibletoknowcertainlywhatthewordsjealousyandadulterystandforinanotherman’smind，withwhomIwoulddiscourseaboutthem；asitwasimpossible，inthebeginningoflanguage，toknowwhatkinneahandniouphstoodforinanotherman’smind，withoutexplication；theybeingvoluntarysignsineveryone。
46。InstancesofaspeciesofsubstancenamedZahab。Letusnowalsoconsider，afterthesamemanner，thenamesofsubstancesintheirfirstapplication。OneofAdam’schildren，rovinginthemountains，lightsonaglitteringsubstancewhichpleaseshiseye。HomehecarriesittoAdam，who，uponconsiderationofit，findsittobehard，tohaveabrightyellowcolour，andanexceedinggreatweight。
Theseperhaps，atfirst，areallthequalitieshetakesnoticeofinit；andabstractingthiscomplexidea，consistingofasubstancehavingthatpeculiarbrightyellowness，andaweightverygreatinproportiontoitsbulk，hegivesthenamezahab，todenominateandmarkallsubstancesthathavethesesensiblequalitiesinthem。Itisevidentnow，that，inthiscase，Adamactsquitedifferentlyfromwhathedidbefore，informingthoseideasofmixedmodestowhichhegavethenameskinneahandniouph。Forthereheputideastogetheronlybyhisownimagination，nottakenfromtheexistenceofanything；andtothemhegavenamestodenominateallthingsthatshouldhappentoagreetothosehisabstractideas，withoutconsideringwhetheranysuchthingdidexistornot；thestandardtherewasofhisownmaking。Butintheforminghisideaofthisnewsubstance，hetakesthequitecontrarycourse；herehehasastandardmadebynature；andtherefore，beingtorepresentthattohimself，bytheideahehasofit，evenwhenitisabsent，heputsinnosimpleideaintohiscomplexone，butwhathehastheperceptionoffromthethingitself。Hetakescarethathisideabeconformabletothisarchetype，andintendsthenameshouldstandforanideasoconformable。
47。Thispieceofmatter，thusdenominatedzahabbyAdam，beingquitedifferentfromanyhehadseenbefore，nobody，Ithink，willdenytobeadistinctspecies，andtohaveitspeculiaressence:andthatthenamezahabisthemarkofthespecies，andanamebelongingtoallthingspartakinginthatessence。ButhereitisplaintheessenceAdammadethenamezahabstandforwasnothingbutabodyhard，shining，yellow，andveryheavy。Buttheinquisitivemindofman，notcontentwiththeknowledgeofthese，asImaysay，superficialqualities，putsAdamuponfurtherexaminationofthismatter。Hethereforeknocks，andbeatsitwithflints，toseewhatwasdiscoverableintheinside:hefindsityieldtoblows，butnoteasilyseparateintopieces:hefindsitwillbendwithoutbreaking。Isnotnowductilitytobeaddedtohisformeridea，andmadepartoftheessenceofthespeciesthatnameZahabstandsfor？Furthertrialsdiscoverfusibilityandfixedness。Arenottheyalso，bythesamereasonthatanyoftheotherswere，tobeputintothecomplexideasignifiedbythenamezahab？Ifnot，whatreasonwilltherebeshownmorefortheonethantheother？Ifthesemust，thenalltheotherproperties，whichanyfurthertrialsshalldiscoverinthismatter，oughtbythesamereasontomakeapartoftheingredientsofthecomplexideawhichthenamezahabstandsfor，andsobetheessenceofthespeciesmarkedbythatname。Whichproperties，becausetheyareendless，itisplainthattheideamadeafterthisfashion，bythisarchetype，willbealwaysinadequate。
48。Theabstractideasofsubstancesalwaysimperfect，andthereforevarious。Butthisisnotall。Itwouldalsofollowthatthenamesofsubstanceswouldnotonlyhave，asintruththeyhave，butwouldalsobesupposedtohavedifferentsignifications，asusedbydifferentmen，whichwouldverymuchcumbertheuseoflanguage。Forifeverydistinctqualitythatwerediscoveredinanymatterbyanyoneweresupposedtomakeanecessarypartofthecomplexideasignifiedbythecommonnamegiventoit，itmustfollow，thatmenmustsupposethesamewordtosignifydifferentthingsindifferentmen:sincetheycannotdoubtbutdifferentmenmayhavediscoveredseveralqualities，insubstancesofthesamedenomination，whichothersknownothingof。
49。Thereforetofixtheirnominalspecies，arealessenseissupposed。Toavoidthistherefore，theyhavesupposedarealessencebelongingtoeveryspecies，fromwhichthesepropertiesallflow，andwouldhavetheirnameofthespeciesstandforthat。Butthey，nothavinganyideaofthatrealessenceinsubstances，andtheirwordssignifyingnothingbuttheideastheyhave，thatwhichisdonebythisattemptisonlytoputthenameorsoundintheplaceandsteadofthethinghavingthatrealessence，withoutknowingwhattherealessenceis，andthisisthatwhichmendowhentheyspeakofspeciesofthings，assupposingthemmadebynature，anddistinguishedbyrealessences。
50。Whichsuppositionisofnouse。For，letusconsider，whenweaffirmthat\"allgoldisfixed，\"eitheritmeansthatfixednessisapartofthedefinition，i。e。，partofthenominalessencethewordgoldstandsfor；andsothisaffirmation，\"allgoldisfixed，\"
containsnothingbutthesignificationofthetermgold。Orelseitmeans，thatfixedness，notbeingapartofthedefinitionofthegold，isapropertyofthatsubstanceitself:inwhichcaseitisplainthatthewordgoldstandsintheplaceofasubstance，havingtherealessenceofaspeciesofthingsmadebynature。Inwhichwayofsubstitutionithassoconfusedanduncertainasignification，that，thoughthisproposition-\"goldisfixed\"-beinthatsenseanaffirmationofsomethingreal；yetitisatruthwillalwaysfailusinitsparticularapplication，andsoisofnorealuseorcertainty。Forletitbeeversotrue，thatallgold，i。e。allthathastherealessenceofgold，isfixed，whatservesthisfor，whilstweknownot，inthissense，whatisorisnotgold？Forifweknownottherealessenceofgold，itisimpossibleweshouldknowwhatparcelofmatterhasthatessence，andsowhetheritbetruegoldorno。
51。Conclusion。Toconclude:whatlibertyAdamhadatfirsttomakeanycomplexideasofmixedmodesbynootherpatternbutbyhisownthoughts，thesamehaveallmeneversincehad。Andthesamenecessityofconforminghisideasofsubstancestothingswithouthim，astoarchetypesmadebynature，thatAdamwasunder，ifhewouldnotwilfullyimposeuponhimself，thesameareallmeneversinceundertoo。ThesamelibertyalsothatAdamhadofaffixinganynewnametoanyidea，thesamehasanyonestill，(especiallythebeginnersoflanguages，ifwecanimagineanysuch)；butonlywiththisdifference，that，inplaceswheremeninsocietyhavealreadyestablishedalanguageamongstthem，thesignificationsofwordsareverywarilyandsparinglytobealtered。Becausemenbeingfurnishedalreadywithnamesfortheirideas，andcommonusehavingappropriatedknownnamestocertainideas，anaffectedmisapplicationofthemcannotbutbeveryridiculous。Hethathathnewnotionswillperhapsventuresometimesonthecoiningofnewtermstoexpressthem:butmenthinkitaboldness，anditisuncertainwhethercommonusewillevermakethempassforcurrent。Butincommunicationwithothers，itisnecessarythatweconformtheideaswemakethevulgarwordsofanylanguagestandfortotheirknownpropersignifications，(whichIhaveexplainedatlargealready)，orelsetomakeknownthatnewsignificationweapplythemto。
ChapterVII
OfParticles1。Particlesconnectparts，orwholesentencestogether。Besideswordswhicharenamesofideasinthemind，thereareagreatmanyothersthataremadeuseoftosignifytheconnexionthatthemindgivestoideas，ortopropositions，onewithanother。Themind，incommunicatingitsthoughtstoothers，doesnotonlyneedsignsoftheideasithasthenbeforeit，butothersalso，toshoworintimatesomeparticularactionofitsown，atthattime，relatingtothoseideas。Thisitdoesseveralways；asIs，andIsnot，arethegeneralmarks，ofthemind，affirmingordenying。Butbesidesaffirmationornegation，withoutwhichthereisinwordsnotruthorfalsehood，theminddoes，indeclaringitssentimentstoothers，connectnotonlythepartsofpropositions，butwholesentencesonetoanother，withtheirseveralrelationsanddependencies，tomakeacoherentdiscourse。
2。Inrightuseofparticlesconsiststheartofwell-speaking。
Thewordswherebyitsignifieswhatconnexionitgivestotheseveralaffirmationsandnegations，thatitunitesinonecontinuedreasoningornarration，aregenerallycalledparticles:anditisintherightuseofthesethatmoreparticularlyconsiststheclearnessandbeautyofagoodstyle。Tothinkwell，itisnotenoughthatamanhasideasclearanddistinctinhisthoughts，northatheobservestheagreementordisagreementofsomeofthem；buthemustthinkintrain，andobservethedependenceofhisthoughtsandreasoningsupononeanother。Andtoexpresswellsuchmethodicalandrationalthoughts，hemusthavewordstoshowwhatconnexion，restriction，distinction，opposition，emphasis&c。，hegivestoeachrespectivepartofhisdiscourse。Tomistakeinanyofthese，istopuzzleinsteadofinforminghishearer:andthereforeitis，thatthosewordswhicharenottrulybythemselvesthenamesofanyideasareofsuchconstantandindispensableuseinlanguage，anddomuchcontributetomen’swellexpressingthemselves。
3。Theyshowwhatrelationthemindgivestoitsownthoughts。
Thispartofgrammarhasbeenperhapsasmuchneglectedassomeothersover-diligentlycultivated。Itiseasyformentowrite，oneafteranother，ofcasesandgenders，moodsandtenses，gerundsandsupines:intheseandtheliketherehasbeengreatdiligenceused；
andparticlesthemselves，insomelanguages，havebeen，withgreatshowofexactness，rankedintotheirseveralorders。Butthoughprepositionsandconjunctions，&c。，arenameswellknowningrammar，andtheparticlescontainedunderthemcarefullyrankedintotheirdistinctsubdivisions；yethewhowouldshowtherightuseofparticles，andwhatsignificancyandforcetheyhave，musttakealittlemorepains，enterintohisownthoughts，andobservenicelytheseveralposturesofhismindindiscoursing。
4。Theyareallmarksofsomeactionorintimationofthemind。
Neitherisitenough，fortheexplainingofthesewords，torenderthem，asisusualindictionaries，bywordsofanothertonguewhichcomenearesttotheirsignification:forwhatismeantbythemiscommonlyashardtobeunderstoodinoneasanotherlanguage。Theyareallmarksofsomeactionorintimationofthemind；andthereforetounderstandthemrightly，theseveralviews，postures，stands，turns，limitations，andexceptions，andseveralotherthoughtsofthemind，forwhichwehaveeithernoneorverydeficientnames，arediligentlytobestudied。Ofthesethereisagreatvariety，muchexceedingthenumberofparticlesthatmostlanguageshavetoexpressthemby:andthereforeitisnottobewonderedthatmostoftheseparticleshavediversandsometimesalmostoppositesignifications。IntheHebrewtonguethereisaparticleconsistingofbutonesingleletter，ofwhichtherearereckonedup，asI
remember，seventy，Iamsureabovefifty，severalsignifications。
5。Instancein\"but。\"\"But\"isaparticle，nonemorefamiliarinourlanguage:andhethatsaysitisadiscretiveconjunction，andthatitanswerstosedLatin，ormaisinFrench，thinkshehassufficientlyexplainedit。Butyetitseemstometointimateseveralrelationsthemindgivestotheseveralpropositionsorpartsofthemwhichitjoinsbythismonosyllable。
First，\"Buttosaynomore\":hereitintimatesastopofthemindinthecourseitwasgoing，beforeitcamequitetotheendofit。
Secondly，\"Isawbuttwoplants\"；hereitshowsthatthemindlimitsthesensetowhatisexpressed，withanegationofallother。
Thirdly，\"Youpray；butitisnotthatGodwouldbringyoutothetruereligion。\"
Fourthly，\"Butthathewouldconfirmyouinyourown。\"Thefirstofthesebutsintimatesasuppositioninthemindofsomethingotherwisethanitshouldbe:thelattershowsthatthemindmakesadirectoppositionbetweenthatandwhatgoesbeforeit。
Fifthly，\"Allanimalshavesense，butadogisananimal\":hereitsignifieslittlemorebutthatthelatterpropositionisjoinedtotheformer，astheminorofasyllogism。
6。Thismatteroftheuseofparticlesbutlightlytouchedhere。
Tothese，Idoubtnot，mightbeaddedagreatmanyothersignificationsofthisparticle，ifitweremybusinesstoexamineitinitsfulllatitude，andconsideritinalltheplacesitistobefound:whichifoneshoulddo，Idoubtwhetherinallthosemannersitismadeuseof，itwoulddeservethetitleofdiscretive，whichgrammariansgivetoit。ButIintendnothereafullexplicationofthissortofsigns。TheinstancesIhavegiveninthisonemaygiveoccasiontoreflectontheiruseandforceinlanguage，andleadusintothecontemplationofseveralactionsofourmindsindiscoursing，whichithasfoundawaytointimatetoothersbytheseparticles，somewhereofconstantly，andothersincertainconstructions，havethesenseofawholesentencecontainedinthem。
ChapterVIII
OfAbstractandConcreteTerms1。Abstracttermsnotpredictableoneofanother，andwhy。Theordinarywordsoflanguage，andourcommonuseofthem，wouldhavegivenuslightintothenatureofourideas，iftheyhadbeenbutconsideredwithattention。Themind，ashasbeenshown，hasapowertoabstractitsideas，andsotheybecomeessences，generalessences，wherebythesortsofthingsaredistinguished。Noweachabstractideabeingdistinct，sothatofanytwotheonecanneverbetheother，themindwill，byitsintuitiveknowledge，perceivetheirdifference，andthereforeinpropositionsnotwowholeideascaneverbeaffirmedoneofanother。Thisweseeinthecommonuseoflanguage，whichpermitsnotanytwoabstractwords，ornamesofabstractideas，tobeaffirmedoneofanother。Forhownearofkinsoevertheymayseemtobe，andhowcertainsoeveritisthatmanisananimal，orrational，orwhite，yeteveryoneatfirsthearingperceivesthefalsehoodofthesepropositions:humanityisanimality，orrationality，orwhiteness:andthisisasevidentasanyofthemostallowedmaxims。Allouraffirmationsthenareonlyinconcrete，whichistheaffirming，notoneabstractideatobeanother，butoneabstractideatobejoinedtoanother；whichabstractideas，insubstances，maybeofanysort；inalltherestarelittleelsebutofrelations；andinsubstancesthemostfrequentareofpowers:
v。g。\"amaniswhite，\"signifiesthatthethingthathastheessenceofamanhasalsoinittheessenceofwhiteness，whichisnothingbutapowertoproducetheideaofwhitenessinonewhoseeyescandiscoverordinaryobjects:or，\"amanisrational，\"signifiesthatthesamethingthathaththeessenceofamanhathalsoinittheessenceofrationality，i。e。apowerofreasoning。
2。Theyshowthedifferenceofourideas。Thisdistinctionofnamesshowsusalsothedifferenceofourideas:forifweobservethem，weshallfindthatoursimpleideashaveallabstractaswellasconcretenames:theonewhereofis(tospeakthelanguageofgrammarians)asubstantive，theotheranadjective；aswhiteness，white；sweetness，sweet。Thelikealsoholdsinourideasofmodesandrelations；asjustice，just；equality，equal:onlywiththisdifference，thatsomeoftheconcretenamesofrelationsamongstmenchieflyaresubstantives；as，paternitas，pater；whereofitwereeasytorenderareason。Butastoourideasofsubstances，wehaveveryfewornoabstractnamesatall。ForthoughtheSchoolshaveintroducedanimalitas，humanitas，corporietas，andsomeothers；yettheyholdnoproportionwiththatinfinitenumberofnamesofsubstances，towhichtheyneverwereridiculousenoughtoattemptthecoiningofabstractones:andthosefewthattheschoolsforged，andputintothemouthsoftheirscholars，couldneveryetgetadmittanceintocommonuse，orobtainthelicenseofpublicapprobation。Whichseemstomeatleasttointimatetheconfessionofallmankind，thattheyhavenoideasoftherealessencesofsubstances，sincetheyhavenotnamesforsuchideas:whichnodoubttheywouldhavehad，hadnottheirconsciousnesstothemselvesoftheirignoranceofthemkeptthemfromsoidleanattempt。Andtherefore，thoughtheyhadideasenoughtodistinguishgoldfromastone，andmetalfromwood；yettheybuttimorouslyventuredonsuchterms，asaurietasandsaxietas，metallietasandlignietas，orthelikenames，whichshouldpretendtosignifytherealessencesofthosesubstanceswhereoftheyknewtheyhadnoideas。Andindeeditwasonlythedoctrineofsubstantialforms，andtheconfidenceofmistakenpretenderstoaknowledgethattheyhadnot，whichfirstcoinedandthenintroducedanimalitasandhumanitas，andthelike；whichyetwentverylittlefurtherthantheirownSchools，andcouldnevergettobecurrentamongstunderstandingmen。Indeed，humanitaswasawordinfamiliaruseamongsttheRomans；butinafardifferentsense，andstoodnotfortheabstractessenceofanysubstance；butwastheabstractednameofamode，anditsconcretehumanus，nothomo。
ChapterIX
OftheImperfectionofWords1。Wordsareusedforrecordingandcommunicatingourthoughts。Fromwhathasbeensaidintheforegoingchapters，itiseasytoperceivewhatimperfectionthereisinlanguage，andhowtheverynatureofwordsmakesitalmostunavoidableformanyofthemtobedoubtfulanduncertainintheirsignifications。Toexaminetheperfectionorimperfectionofwords，itisnecessaryfirsttoconsidertheiruseandend:forastheyaremoreorlessfittedtoattainthat，sotheyaremoreorlessperfect。Wehave，intheformerpartofthisdiscourseoften，uponoccasion，mentionedadoubleuseofwords。
First，Onefortherecordingofourownthoughts。
Secondly，Theotherforthecommunicatingofourthoughtstoothers。
2。Anywordswillserveforrecording。Astothefirstofthese，fortherecordingourownthoughtsforthehelpofourownmemories，whereby，asitwere，wetalktoourselves，anywordswillservetheturn。Forsincesoundsarevoluntaryandindifferentsignsofanyideas，amanmayusewhatwordshepleasestosignifyhisownideastohimself:andtherewillbenoimperfectioninthem，ifheconstantlyusethesamesignforthesameidea:forthenhecannotfailofhavinghismeaningunderstood，whereinconsiststherightuseandperfectionoflanguage。
3。Communicationbywordseitherforcivilorphilosophicalpurposes。Secondly，Astocommunicationbywords，thattoohasadoubleuse。
I。Civil。
II。Philosophical。
First，bytheirciviluse，Imeansuchacommunicationofthoughtsandideasbywords，asmayservefortheupholdingcommonconversationandcommerce，abouttheordinaryaffairsandconveniencesofcivillife，inthesocietiesofmen，oneamongstanother。
Secondly，Bythephilosophicaluseofwords，Imeansuchauseofthemasmayservetoconveytheprecisenotionsofthings，andtoexpressingeneralpropositionscertainandundoubtedtruths，whichthemindmayrestuponandbesatisfiedwithinitssearchaftertrueknowledge。Thesetwousesareverydistinct；andagreatdeallessexactnesswillserveintheonethanintheother，asweshallseeinwhatfollows。
4。Theimperfectionofwordsisthedoubtfulnessorambiguityoftheirsignification，whichiscausedbythesortofideastheystandfor。Thechiefendoflanguageincommunicationbeingtobeunderstood，wordsservenotwellforthatend，neitherincivilnorphilosophicaldiscourse，whenanyworddoesnotexciteinthehearerthesameideawhichitstandsforinthemindofthespeaker。Now，sincesoundshavenonaturalconnexionwithourideas，buthavealltheirsignificationfromthearbitraryimpositionofmen，thedoubtfulnessanduncertaintyoftheirsignification，whichistheimperfectionweherearespeakingof，hasitscausemoreintheideastheystandforthaninanyincapacitythereisinonesoundmorethaninanothertosignifyanyidea:forinthatregardtheyareallequallyperfect。
Thatthenwhichmakesdoubtfulnessanduncertaintyinthesignificationofsomemorethanotherwords，isthedifferenceofideastheystandfor。
5。Naturalcausesoftheirimperfection，especiallyinthosethatstandformixedmodes，andforourideasofsubstances。Wordshavingnaturallynosignification，theideawhicheachstandsformustbelearnedandretained，bythosewhowouldexchangethoughts，andholdintelligiblediscoursewithothers，inanylanguage。Butthisisthehardesttobedonewhere，First，Theideastheystandforareverycomplex，andmadeupofagreatnumberofideasputtogether。
Secondly，Wheretheideastheystandforhavenocertainconnexioninnature；andsonosettledstandardanywhereinnatureexisting，torectifyandadjustthemby。
Thirdly，Whenthesignificationofthewordisreferredtoastandard，whichstandardisnoteasytobeknown。
Fourthly，Wherethesignificationofthewordandtherealessenceofthethingarenotexactlythesame。
Thesearedifficultiesthatattendthesignificationofseveralwordsthatareintelligible。Thosewhicharenotintelligibleatall，suchasnamesstandingforanysimpleideaswhichanotherhasnotorgansorfacultiestoattain；asthenamesofcolourstoablindman，orsoundstoadeafman，neednotherebementioned。
Inallthesecasesweshallfindanimperfectioninwords；whichI
shallmoreatlargeexplain，intheirparticularapplicationtoourseveralsortsofideas:forifweexaminethem，weshallfindthatthenamesofMixedModesaremostliabletodoubtfulnessandimperfection，forthetwofirstofthesereasons；andthenamesofSubstanceschieflyforthetwolatter。
6。Thenamesofmixedmodesdoubtful。First，becausetheideastheystandforaresocomplex。First，Thenamesofmixedmodesare，manyofthem，liabletogreatuncertaintyandobscurityintheirsignificationI。Becauseofthatgreatcompositionthesecomplexideasareoftenmadeupof。Tomakewordsserviceabletotheendofcommunication，itisnecessary，ashasbeensaid，thattheyexciteinthehearerexactlythesameideatheystandforinthemindofthespeaker。
Withoutthis，menfilloneanother’sheadswithnoiseandsounds；
butconveynottherebytheirthoughts，andlaynotbeforeoneanothertheirideas，whichistheendofdiscourseandlanguage。Butwhenawordstandsforaverycomplexideathatiscompoundedanddecompounded，itisnoteasyformentoformandretainthatideasoexactly，astomakethenameincommonusestandforthesamepreciseidea，withoutanytheleastvariation。Henceitcomestopassthatmen’snamesofverycompoundideas，suchasforthemostpartaremoralwords，haveseldomintwodifferentmenthesameprecisesignification；sinceoneman’scomplexideaseldomagreeswithanother’s，andoftendiffersfromhisown-fromthatwhichhehadyesterday，orwillhaveto-morrow。
7。Secondly，becausetheyhavenostandardsinnature。Becausethenamesofmixedmodesforthemostpartwantstandardsinnature，wherebymenmayrectifyandadjusttheirsignifications，thereforetheyareveryvariousanddoubtful。Theyareassemblagesofideasputtogetheratthepleasureofthemind，pursuingitsownendsofdiscourse，andsuitedtoitsownnotions，wherebyitdesignsnottocopyanythingreallyexisting，buttodenominateandrankthingsastheycometoagreewiththosearchetypesorformsithasmade。Hethatfirstbroughtthewordsham，orwheedle，orbanter，inuse，puttogetherashethoughtfitthoseideashemadeitstandfor；andasitiswithanynewnamesofmodesthatarenowbroughtintoanylanguage，soitwaswiththeoldoneswhentheywerefirstmadeuseof。Names，therefore，thatstandforcollectionsofideaswhichthemindmakesatpleasuremustneedsbeofdoubtfulsignification，whensuchcollectionsarenowheretobefoundconstantlyunitedinnature，noranypatternstobeshownwherebymenmayadjustthem。Whatthewordmurder，orsacrilege，&c。，signifiescanneverbeknownfromthingsthemselves:therebemanyofthepartsofthosecomplexideaswhicharenotvisibleintheactionitself；theintentionofthemind，ortherelationofholythings，whichmakeapartofmurderorsacrilege，havenonecessaryconnexionwiththeoutwardandvisibleactionofhimthatcommitseither:andthepullingthetriggerofthegunwithwhichthemurderiscommitted，andisalltheactionthatperhapsisvisible，hasnonaturalconnexionwiththoseotherideasthatmakeupthecomplexonenamedmurder。Theyhavetheirunionandcombinationonlyfromtheunderstandingwhichunitesthemunderonename:but，unitingthemwithoutanyruleorpattern，itcannotbebutthatthesignificationofthenamethatstandsforsuchvoluntarycollectionsshouldbeoftenvariousinthemindsofdifferentmen，whohavescarceanystandingruletoregulatethemselvesandtheirnotionsby，insucharbitraryideas。
8。Commonuse，orproprietynotasufficientremedy。Itistrue，commonuse，thatis，theruleofproprietymaybesupposedheretoaffordsomeaid，tosettlethesignificationoflanguage；anditcannotbedeniedbutthatinsomemeasureitdoes。Commonuseregulatesthemeaningofwordsprettywellforcommonconversation；
butnobodyhavinganauthoritytoestablishtheprecisesignificationofwords，nordeterminetowhatideasanyoneshallannexthem，commonuseisnotsufficienttoadjustthemtoPhilosophicalDiscourses；therebeingscarceanynameofanyverycomplexidea(tosaynothingofothers)which，incommonuse，hasnotagreatlatitude，andwhich，keepingwithintheboundsofpropriety，maynotbemadethesignoffardifferentideas。Besides，theruleandmeasureofproprietyitselfbeingnowhereestablished，itisoftenmatterofdispute，whetherthisorthatwayofusingawordbeproprietyofspeechorno。Fromallwhichitisevident，thatthenamesofsuchkindofverycomplexideasarenaturallyliabletothisimperfection，tobeofdoubtfulanduncertainsignification；
andeveninmenthathaveamindtounderstandoneanother，donotalwaysstandforthesameideainspeakerandhearer。Thoughthenamesgloryandgratitudebethesameineveryman’smouththroughawholecountry，yetthecomplexcollectiveideawhicheveryonethinksonorintendsbythatname，isapparentlyverydifferentinmenusingthesamelanguage。
9。Thewayoflearningthesenamescontributesalsototheirdoubtfulness。Thewayalsowhereinthenamesofmixedmodesareordinarilylearned，doesnotalittlecontributetothedoubtfulnessoftheirsignification。Forifwewillobservehowchildrenlearnlanguages，weshallfindthat，tomakethemunderstandwhatthenamesofsimpleideasorsubstancesstandfor，peopleordinarilyshowthemthethingwhereoftheywouldhavethemhavetheidea；andthenrepeattothemthenamethatstandsforit；aswhite，sweet，milk，sugar，cat，dog。Butasformixedmodes，especiallythemostmaterialofthem，moralwords，thesoundsareusuallylearnedfirst；
andthen，toknowwhatcomplexideastheystandfor，theyareeitherbeholdentotheexplicationofothers，or(whichhappensforthemostpart)arelefttotheirownobservationandindustry；whichbeinglittlelaidoutinthesearchofthetrueandprecisemeaningofnames，thesemoralwordsareinmostmen’smouthslittlemorethanbaresounds；orwhentheyhaveany，itisforthemostpartbutaverylooseandundetermined，and，consequently，obscureandconfusedsignification。Andeventhosethemselveswhohavewithmoreattentionsettledtheirnotions，doyethardlyavoidtheinconveniencetohavethemstandforcomplexideasdifferentfromthosewhichother，evenintelligentandstudiousmen，makethemthesignsof。Whereshallonefindany，eithercontroversialdebate，orfamiliardiscourse，concerninghonour，faith，grace，religion，church，&c。，whereinitisnoteasytoobservethedifferentnotionsmenhaveofthem？Whichisnothingbutthis，thattheyarenotagreedinthesignificationofthosewords，norhaveintheirmindsthesamecomplexideaswhichtheymakethemstandfor，andsoalltheconteststhatfollowthereuponareonlyaboutthemeaningofasound。Andhenceweseethat，intheinterpretationoflaws，whetherdivineorhuman，thereisnoend；commentsbegetcomments，andexplicationsmakenewmatterforexplications；andoflimiting，distinguishing，varyingthesignificationofthesemoralwordsthereisnoend。Theseideasofmen’smakingare，bymenstillhavingthesamepower，multipliedininfinitum。ManyamanwhowasprettywellsatisfiedofthemeaningofatextofScripture，orclauseinthecode，atfirstreading，has，byconsultingcommentators，quitelostthesenseofit，andbytheseelucidationsgivenriseorincreasetohisdoubts，anddrawnobscurityupontheplace。IsaynotthisthatIthinkcommentariesneedless；buttoshowhowuncertainthenamesofmixedmodesnaturallyare，eveninthemouthsofthosewhohadboththeintentionandthefacultyofspeakingasclearlyaslanguagewascapabletoexpresstheirthoughts。
10。Henceunavoidableobscurityinancientauthors。Whatobscuritythishasunavoidablybroughtuponthewritingsofmenwhohavelivedinremoteages，anddifferentcountries，itwillbeneedlesstotakenotice。Sincethenumerousvolumesoflearnedmen，employingtheirthoughtsthatway，areproofsmorethanenough，toshowwhatattention，study，sagacity，andreasoningarerequiredtofindoutthetruemeaningofancientauthors。But，therebeingnowritingswehaveanygreatconcernmenttobeverysolicitousaboutthemeaningof，butthosethatcontaineithertruthswearerequiredtobelieve，orlawswearetoobey，anddrawinconveniencesonuswhenwemistakeortransgress，wemaybelessanxiousaboutthesenseofotherauthors；who，writingbuttheirownopinions，weareundernogreaternecessitytoknowthem，thantheytoknowours。Ourgoodorevildependingnotontheirdecrees，wemaysafelybeignorantoftheirnotions:andthereforeinthereadingofthem，iftheydonotusetheirwordswithadueclearnessandperspicuity，wemaylaythemaside，andwithoutanyinjurydonethem，resolvethuswithourselves，Sinonvisintelligi，debesnegligi。
11。Namesofsubstancesofdoubtfulsignification，becausetheideastheystandforrelatetotherealityofthings。Ifthesignificationofthenamesofmixedmodesbeuncertain，becausetherebenorealstandardsexistinginnaturetowhichthoseideasarereferred，andbywhichtheymaybeadjusted，thenamesofsubstancesareofadoubtfulsignification，foracontraryreason，viz。becausetheideastheystandforaresupposedconformabletotherealityofthings，andarereferredtoasstandardsmadebyNature。Inourideasofsubstanceswehavenottheliberty，asinmixedmodes，toframewhatcombinationswethinkfit，tobethecharacteristicalnotestorankanddenominatethingsby。InthesewemustfollowNature，suitourcomplexideastorealexistences，andregulatethesignificationoftheirnamesbythethingsthemselves，ifwewillhaveournamestobesignsofthem，andstandforthem。Here，itistrue，wehavepatternstofollow；butpatternsthatwillmakethesignificationoftheirnamesveryuncertain:fornamesmustbeofaveryunsteadyandvariousmeaning，iftheideastheystandforbereferredtostandardswithoutus，thateithercannotbeknownatall，orcanbeknownbutimperfectlyanduncertainly。
12。Namesofsubstancesreferred，torealessencesthatcannotbeknown。Thenamesofsubstanceshave，ashasbeenshown，adoublereferenceintheirordinaryuse。
First，Sometimestheyaremadetostandfor，andsotheirsignificationissupposedtoagreeto，therealconstitutionofthings，fromwhichalltheirpropertiesflow，andinwhichtheyallcentre。Butthisrealconstitution，or(asitisapttobecalled)
essence，beingutterlyunknowntous，anysoundthatisputtostandforitmustbeveryuncertaininitsapplication；anditwillbeimpossibletoknowwhatthingsareoroughttobecalledahorse，orantimony，whenthosewordsareputforrealessencesthatwehavenoideasofatall。Andthereforeinthissupposition，thenamesofsubstancesbeingreferredtostandardsthatcannotbeknown，theirsignificationscanneverbeadjustedandestablishedbythosestandards。
13。Toco-existingqualities，whichareknownbutimperfectly。
Secondly，Thesimpleideasthatarefoundtoco-existinsubstancesbeingthatwhichtheirnamesimmediatelysignify，these，asunitedintheseveralsortsofthings，aretheproperstandardstowhichtheirnamesarereferred，andbywhichtheirsignificationsmaybebestrectified。Butneitherwillthesearchetypessowellservetothispurposeastoleavethesenameswithoutveryvariousanduncertainsignifications。Becausethesesimpleideasthatco-exist，andareunitedinthesamesubject，beingverynumerous，andhavingallanequalrighttogointothecomplexspecificideawhichthespecificnameistostandfor，men，thoughtheyproposetothemselvestheverysamesubjecttoconsider，yetframeverydifferentideasaboutit；andsothenametheyuseforitunavoidablycomestohave，inseveralmen，verydifferentsignifications。Thesimplequalitieswhichmakeupthecomplexideas，beingmostofthempowers，inrelationtochangeswhichtheyareapttomakein，orreceivefromotherbodies，arealmostinfinite。Hethatshallbutobservewhatagreatvarietyofalterationsanyoneofthebasermetalsisapttoreceive，fromthedifferentapplicationonlyoffire；
andhowmuchagreaternumberofchangesanyofthemwillreceiveinthehandsofachymist，bytheapplicationofotherbodies，willnotthinkitstrangethatIcountthepropertiesofanysortofbodiesnoteasytobecollected，andcompletelyknown，bythewaysofinquirywhichourfacultiesarecapableof。Theybeingthereforeatleastsomany，thatnomancanknowthepreciseanddefinitenumber，theyaredifferentlydiscoveredbydifferentmen，accordingtotheirvariousskill，attention，andwaysofhandling；whothereforecannotchoosebuthavedifferentideasofthesamesubstance，andthereforemakethesignificationofitscommonnameveryvariousanduncertain。Forthecomplexideasofsubstances，beingmadeupofsuchsimpleonesasaresupposedtoco-existinnature，everyonehasarighttoputintohiscomplexideathosequalitieshehasfoundtobeunitedtogether。For，thoughinthesubstanceofgoldonesatisfieshimselfwithcolourandweight，yetanotherthinkssolubilityinaquaregiaasnecessarytobejoinedwiththatcolourinhisideaofgold，asanyonedoesitsfusibility；solubilityinaquaregiabeingaqualityasconstantlyjoinedwithitscolourandweightasfusibilityoranyother；othersputintoitductilityorfixedness，&c。，astheyhavebeentaughtbytraditionorexperience。Whoofallthesehasestablishedtherightsignificationoftheword，gold？Orwhoshallbethejudgetodetermine？Eachhashisstandardinnature，whichheappealsto，andwithreasonthinkshehasthesamerighttoputintohiscomplexideasignifiedbythewordgold，thosequalities，which，upontrial，hehasfoundunited；asanotherwhohasnotsowellexaminedhastoleavethemout；orathird，whohasmadeothertrials，hastoputinothers。Fortheunioninnatureofthesequalitiesbeingthetruegroundoftheirunioninonecomplexidea，whocansayoneofthemhasmorereasontobeputinorleftoutthananother？Fromhenceitwillunavoidablyfollow，thatthecomplexideasofsubstancesinmenusingthesamenamesforthem，willbeveryvarious，andsothesignificationsofthosenamesveryuncertain。
14。Thirdly，toco-existingqualitieswhichareknownbutimperfectly。Besides，thereisscarceanyparticularthingexisting，which，insomeofitssimpleideas，doesnotcommunicatewithagreater，andinothersalessnumberofparticularbeings:whoshalldetermineinthiscasewhicharethosethataretomakeuptheprecisecollectionthatistobesignifiedbythespecificname？orcanwithanyjustauthorityprescribe，whichobviousorcommonqualitiesaretobeleftout；orwhichmoresecret，ormoreparticular，aretobeputintothesignificationofthenameofanysubstance？Allwhichtogether，seldomorneverfalltoproducethatvariousanddoubtfulsignificationinthenamesofsubstances，whichcausessuchuncertainty，disputes，ormistakes，whenwecometoaphilosophicaluseofthem。
15。Withthisimperfection，theymayserveforcivil，butnotwellforphilosophicaluse。Itistrue，astocivilandcommonconversation，thegeneralnamesofsubstances，regulatedintheirordinarysignificationbysomeobviousqualities，(asbytheshapeandfigureinthingsofknownseminalpropagation，andinothersubstances，forthemostpartbycolour，joinedwithsomeothersensiblequalities)，dowellenoughtodesignthethingsmenwouldbeunderstoodtospeakof:andsotheyusuallyconceivewellenoughthesubstancesmeantbythewordgoldorapple，todistinguishtheonefromtheother。Butinphilosophicalinquiriesanddebates，wheregeneraltruthsaretobeestablished，andconsequencesdrawnfrompositionslaiddown，theretheprecisesignificationofthenamesofsubstanceswillbefoundnotonlynottobewellestablished，butalsoveryhardtobeso。Forexample:hethatshallmakemalleability，oracertaindegreeoffixedness，apartofhiscomplexideaofgold，maymakepropositionsconcerninggold，anddrawconsequencesfromthem，thatwilltrulyandclearlyfollowfromgold，takeninsuchasignification:butyetsuchasanothermancanneverbeforcedtoadmit，norbeconvincedoftheirtruth，whomakesnotmalleableness，orthesamedegreeoffixedness，partofthatcomplexideathatthenamegold，inhisuseofit，standsfor。
16。Instance，liquor。Thisisanaturalandalmostunavoidableimperfectioninalmostallthenamesofsubstances，inalllanguageswhatsoever，whichmenwilleasilyfindwhen，oncepassingfromconfusedorloosenotions，theycometomorestrictandcloseinquiries。Forthentheywillbeconvincedhowdoubtfulandobscurethosewordsareintheirsignification，whichinordinaryuseappearedveryclearanddetermined。Iwasonceinameetingofverylearnedandingeniousphysicians，wherebychancetherearoseaquestion，whetheranyliquorpassedthroughthefilamentsofthenerves。Thedebatehavingbeenmanagedagoodwhile，byvarietyofargumentsonbothsides，I(whohadbeenusedtosuspect，thatthegreatestpartofdisputesweremoreaboutthesignificationofwordsthanarealdifferenceintheconceptionofthings)desired，that，beforetheywentanyfurtheroninthisdispute，theywouldfirstexamineandestablishamongstthem，whatthewordliquorsignified。Theyatfirstwerealittlesurprisedattheproposal；andhadtheybeenpersonslessingenious，theymightperhapshavetakenitforaveryfrivolousorextravagantone:sincetherewasnoonetherethatthoughtnothimselftounderstandveryperfectlywhatthewordliquorstoodfor；whichIthink，too，noneofthemostperplexednamesofsubstances。However，theywerepleasedtocomplywithmymotion；
anduponexaminationfoundthatthesignificationofthatwordwasnotsosettledorcertainastheyhadallimagined；butthateachofthemmadeitasignofadifferentcomplexidea。Thismadethemperceivethatthemainoftheirdisputewasaboutthesignificationofthatterm；andthattheydifferedverylittleintheiropinionsconcerningsomefluidandsubtlematter，passingthroughtheconduitsofthenerves；thoughitwasnotsoeasytoagreewhetheritwastobecalledliquororno，athing，which，whenconsidered，theythoughtitnotworththecontendingabout。
17。Instance，gold。Howmuchthisisthecaseinthegreatestpartofdisputesthatmenareengagedsohotlyin，Ishallperhapshaveanoccasioninanotherplacetotakenotice。Letusonlyhereconsideralittlemoreexactlytheforementionedinstanceofthewordgold，andweshallseehowharditispreciselytodetermineitssignification。Ithinkallagreetomakeitstandforabodyofacertainyellowshiningcolour；whichbeingtheideatowhichchildrenhaveannexedthatname，theshiningyellowpartofapeacock’stailisproperlytothemgold。Othersfindingfusibilityjoinedwiththatyellowcolourincertainparcelsofmatter，makeofthatcombinationacomplexideatowhichtheygivethenamegold，todenoteasortofsubstances；andsoexcludefrombeinggoldallsuchyellowshiningbodiesasbyfirewillbereducedtoashes；andadmittobeofthatspecies，ortobecomprehendedunderthatnamegold，onlysuchsubstancesas，havingthatshiningyellowcolour，willbyfirebereducedtofusion，andnottoashes。Another，bythesamereason，addstheweight，which，beingaqualityasstraightlyjoinedwiththatcolourasitsfusibility，hethinkshasthesamereasontobejoinedinitsidea，andtobesignifiedbyitsname:andthereforetheothermadeupofbody，ofsuchacolourandfusibility，tobeimperfect；andsoonofalltherest:whereinnoonecanshowareasonwhysomeoftheinseparablequalities，thatarealwaysunitedinnature，shouldbeputintothenominalessence，andothersleftout:orwhythewordgold，signifyingthatsortofbodytheringonhisfingerismadeof，shoulddeterminethatsortratherbyitscolour，weight，andfusibility，thanbyitscolour，weight，andsolubilityinaquaregia:sincethedissolvingitbythatliquorisasinseparablefromitasthefusionbyfire；andtheyarebothofthemnothingbuttherelationwhichthatsubstancehastotwootherbodies，whichhaveapowertooperatedifferentlyuponit。Forbywhatrightisitthatfusibilitycomestobeapartoftheessencesignifiedbythewordgold，andsolubilitybutapropertyofit？Orwhyisitscolourpartoftheessence，anditsmalleablenessbutaproperty？ThatwhichImeanisthis，Thatthesebeingallbutproperties，dependingonitsrealconstitution，andnothingbutpowers，eitheractiveorpassive，inreferencetootherbodies，noonehasauthoritytodeterminethesignificationofthewordgold(asreferredtosuchabodyexistinginnature)moretoonecollectionofideastobefoundinthatbodythantoanother:wherebythesignificationofthatnamemustunavoidablybeveryuncertain。Since，ashasbeensaid，severalpeopleobserveseveralpropertiesinthesamesubstance；andIthinkI
maysaynobodyall。Andthereforewehavebutveryimperfectdescriptionsofthings，andwordshaveveryuncertainsignifications。
18。Thenamesofsimpleideastheleastdoubtful。Fromwhathasbeensaid，itiseasytoobservewhathasbeenbeforeremarked，viz。thatthenamesofsimpleideasare，ofallothers，theleastliabletomistakes，andthatforthesereasons。First，Becausetheideastheystandfor，beingeachbutonesingleperception，aremucheasiergot，andmoreclearlyretained，thanthemorecomplexones，andthereforearenotliabletotheuncertaintywhichusuallyattendsthosecompoundedonesofsubstancesandmixedmodes，inwhichtheprecisenumberofsimpleideasthatmakethemuparenoteasilyagreed，soreadilykeptinmind。And，Secondly，Becausetheyareneverreferredtoanyotheressence，butbarelythatperceptiontheyimmediatelysignify:whichreferenceisthatwhichrendersthesignificationofthenamesofsubstancesnaturallysoperplexed，andgivesoccasiontosomanydisputes。Menthatdonotperverselyusetheirwords，oronpurposesetthemselvestocavil，seldommistake，inanylanguagewhichtheyareacquaintedwith，theuseandsignificationofthenameofsimpleideas。Whiteandsweet，yellowandbitter，carryaveryobviousmeaningwiththem，whicheveryonepreciselycomprehends，oreasilyperceivesheisignorantof，andseekstobeinformed。Butwhatprecisecollectionofsimpleideasmodestyorfrugalitystandfor，inanother’suse，isnotsocertainlyknown。
Andhoweverweareapttothinkwewellenoughknowwhatismeantbygoldoriron；yettheprecisecomplexideaothersmakethemthesignsofisnotsocertain:andIbelieveitisveryseldomthat，inspeakerandhearer，theystandforexactlythesamecollection。
Whichmustneedsproducemistakesanddisputes，whentheyaremadeuseofindiscourses，whereinmenhavetodowithuniversalpropositions，andwouldsettleintheirmindsuniversaltruths，andconsidertheconsequencesthatfollowfromthem。
19。Andnexttothem，simplemodes。Bythesamerule，thenamesofsimplemodesare，nexttothoseofsimpleideas，leastliabletodoubtanduncertainty；especiallythoseoffigureandnumber，ofwhichmenhavesoclearanddistinctideas。Whoeverthathadamindtounderstandthemmistooktheordinarymeaningofseven，oratriangle？Andingeneraltheleastcompoundedideasineverykindhavetheleastdubiousnames。
20。Themostdoubtfularethenamesofverycompoundedmixedmodesandsubstances。Mixedmodes，therefore，thataremadeupbutofafewandobvioussimpleideas，haveusuallynamesofnoveryuncertainsignification。Butthenamesofmixedmodeswhichcomprehendagreatnumberofsimpleideas，arecommonlyofaverydoubtfulandundeterminedmeaning，ashasbeenshown。Thenamesofsubstances，beingannexedtoideasthatareneithertherealessences，norexactrepresentationsofthepatternstheyarereferredto，areliabletoyetgreaterimperfectionanduncertainty，especiallywhenwecometoaphilosophicaluseofthem。
21。Whythisimperfectionchargeduponwords。Thegreatdisorderthathappensinournamesofsubstances，proceeding，forthemostpart，fromourwantofknowledge，andinabilitytopenetrateintotheirrealconstitutions，itmayprobablybewonderedwhyIchargethisasanimperfectionratheruponourwordsthanunderstandings。
Thisexceptionhassomuchappearanceofjustice，thatIthinkmyselfobligedtogiveareasonwhyIhavefollowedthismethod。I
mustconfess，then，that，whenIfirstbeganthisDiscourseoftheUnderstanding，andagoodwhileafter，Ihadnottheleastthoughtthatanyconsiderationofwordswasatallnecessarytoit。Butwhen，havingpassedovertheoriginalandcompositionofourideas，Ibegantoexaminetheextentandcertaintyofourknowledge，I
foundithadsonearaconnexionwithwords，that，unlesstheirforceandmannerofsignificationwerefirstwellobserved，therecouldbeverylittlesaidclearlyandpertinentlyconcerningknowledge:whichbeingconversantabouttruth，hadconstantlytodowithpropositions。Andthoughitterminatedinthings，yetitwasforthemostpartsomuchbytheinterventionofwords，thattheyseemedscarceseparablefromourgeneralknowledge。Atleasttheyinterposethemselvessomuchbetweenourunderstandings，andthetruthwhichitwouldcontemplateandapprehend，that，likethemediumthroughwhichvisibleobjectspass，theobscurityanddisorderdonotseldomcastamistbeforeoureyes，andimposeuponourunderstandings。Ifweconsider，inthefallaciesmenputuponthemselves，aswellasothers，andthemistakesinmen’sdisputesandnotions，howgreatapartisowingtowords，andtheiruncertainormistakensignifications，weshallhavereasontothinkthisnosmallobstacleinthewaytoknowledge；whichIconcludewearethemorecarefullytobewarnedof，becauseithasbeensofarfrombeingtakennoticeofasaninconvenience，thattheartsofimprovingithavebeenmadethebusinessofmen’sstudy，andobtainedthereputationoflearningandsubtilty，asweshallseeinthefollowingchapter。ButIamapttoimagine，that，weretheimperfectionsoflanguage，astheinstrumentofknowledge，morethoroughlyweighed，agreatmanyofthecontroversiesthatmakesuchanoiseintheworld，wouldofthemselvescease；andthewaytoknowledge，andperhapspeacetoo，lieagreatdealopenerthanitdoes。
22。Thisshouldteachusmoderationinimposingourownsenseofoldauthors。SureIamthatthesignificationofwordsinalllanguages，dependingverymuchonthethoughts，notions，andideasofhimthatusesthem，mustunavoidablybeofgreatuncertaintytomenofthesamelanguageandcountry。ThisissoevidentintheGreekauthors，thathethatshallperusetheirwritingswillfindinalmosteveryoneofthem，adistinctlanguage，thoughthesamewords。Butwhentothisnaturaldifficultyineverycountry，thereshallbeaddeddifferentcountriesandremoteages，whereinthespeakersandwritershadverydifferentnotions，tempers，customs，ornaments，andfiguresofspeech，&c。，everyoneofwhichinfluencedthesignificationoftheirwordsthen，thoughtousnowtheyarelostandunknown；itwouldbecomeustobecharitableonetoanotherinourinterpretationsormisunderstandingsofthoseancientwritings；which，thoughofgreatconcernmenttobeunderstood，areliabletotheunavoidabledifficultiesofspeech，which(ifweexceptthenamesofsimpleideas，andsomeveryobviousthings)isnotcapable，withoutaconstantdefiningtheterms，ofconveyingthesenseandintentionofthespeaker，withoutanymannerofdoubtanduncertaintytothehearer。
Andindiscoursesofreligion，law，andmorality，astheyaremattersofthehighestconcernment，sotherewillbethegreatestdifficulty。
23。EspeciallyoftheOldandNewTestamentScriptures。ThevolumesofinterpretersandcommentatorsontheOldandNewTestamentarebuttoomanifestproofsofthis。Thougheverythingsaidinthetextbeinfalliblytrue，yetthereadermaybe，nay，cannotchoosebutbe，veryfallibleintheunderstandingofit。Norisittobewondered，thatthewillofGod，whenclothedinwords，shouldbeliabletothatdoubtanduncertaintywhichunavoidablyattendsthatsortofconveyance，whenevenhisSon，whilstclothedinflesh，wassubjecttoallthefrailtiesandinconveniencesofhumannature，sinexcepted。Andweoughttomagnifyhisgoodness，thathehathspreadbeforealltheworldsuchlegiblecharactersofhisworksandprovidence，andgivenallmankindsosufficientalightofreason，thattheytowhomthiswrittenwordnevercame，couldnot(whenevertheysetthemselvestosearch)eitherdoubtofthebeingofaGod，oroftheobedienceduetohim。SincethenthepreceptsofNaturalReligionareplain，andveryintelligibletoallmankind，andseldomcometobecontroverted；andotherrevealedtruths，whichareconveyedtousbybooksandlanguages，areliabletothecommonandnaturalobscuritiesanddifficultiesincidenttowords；methinksitwouldbecomeustobemorecarefulanddiligentinobservingtheformer，andlessmagisterial，positive，andimperious，inimposingourownsenseandinterpretationsofthelatter。
ChapterX
OftheAbuseofWords1。Woefulabuseofwords。Besidestheimperfectionthatisnaturallyinlanguage，andtheobscurityandconfusionthatissohardtobeavoidedintheuseofwords，thereareseveralwilfulfaultsandneglectswhichmenareguiltyofinthiswayofcommunication，wherebytheyrenderthesesignslessclearanddistinctintheirsignificationthannaturallytheyneedtobe。
2。Wordsareoftenemployedwithoutany，orwithoutclearideas。
First，Inthiskindthefirstandmostpalpableabuseis，theusingofwordswithoutclearanddistinctideas；or，whichisworse，signswithoutanythingsignified。Ofthesetherearetwosorts:-
I。Somewordsintroducedwithoutclearideasannexedtothem，evenintheirfirstoriginal。Onemayobserve，inalllanguages，certainwordsthat，iftheybeexamined，willbefoundintheirfirstoriginal，andtheirappropriateduse，nottostandforanyclearanddistinctideas。These，forthemostpart，theseveralsectsofphilosophyandreligionhaveintroduced。Fortheirauthorsorpromoters，eitheraffectingsomethingsingular，andoutofthewayofcommonapprehensions，ortosupportsomestrangeopinions，orcoversomeweaknessoftheirhypothesis，seldomfailtocoinnewwords，andsuchas，whentheycometobeexamined，mayjustlybecalledinsignificantterms。For，havingeitherhadnodeterminatecollectionofideasannexedtothemwhentheywerefirstinvented；
oratleastsuchas，ifwellexamined，willbefoundinconsistent，itisnowonder，if，afterwards，inthevulgaruseofthesameparty，theyremainemptysounds，withlittleornosignification，amongstthosewhothinkitenoughtohavethemoftenintheirmouths，asthedistinguishingcharactersoftheirChurchorSchool，withoutmuchtroublingtheirheadstoexaminewhatarethepreciseideastheystandfor。Ishallnotneedheretoheapupinstances；
everyman’sreadingandconversationwillsufficientlyfurnishhim。Orifhewantstobebetterstored，thegreatmintmastersofthiskindofterms，ImeantheSchoolmenandMetaphysicians(underwhichIthinkthedisputingnaturalandmoralphilosophersoftheselatteragesmaybecomprehended)havewherewithalabundantlytocontenthim。
3。II。Otherwords，towhichideaswereannexedatfirst，usedafterwardswithoutdistinctmeanings。Otherstherebewhoextendthisabuseyetfurther，whotakesolittlecaretolaybywords，which，intheirprimarynotationhavescarceanyclearanddistinctideaswhichtheyareannexedto，that，byanunpardonablenegligence，theyfamiliarlyusewordswhichtheproprietyoflanguagehasaffixedtoveryimportantideas，withoutanydistinctmeaningatall。Wisdom，glory，grace，&c。，arewordsfrequentenoughineveryman’smouth；butifagreatmanyofthosewhousethemshouldbeaskedwhattheymeanbythem，theywouldbeatastand，andnotknowwhattoanswer:aplainproof，that，thoughtheyhavelearnedthosesounds，andhavethemreadyattheirtonguesends，yettherearenodeterminedideaslaidupintheirminds，whicharetobeexpressedtoothersbythem。
4。Thisoccasionedbymenlearningnamesbeforetheyhavetheideasthenamesbelongto。Menhavingbeenaccustomedfromtheircradlestolearnwordswhichareeasilygotandretained，beforetheykneworhadframedthecomplexideastowhichtheywereannexed，orwhichweretobefoundinthethingstheywerethoughttostandfor，theyusuallycontinuetodosoalltheirlives；andwithouttakingthepainsnecessarytosettleintheirmindsdeterminedideas，theyusetheirwordsforsuchunsteadyandconfusednotionsastheyhave，contentingthemselveswiththesamewordsotherpeopleuse；asiftheirverysoundnecessarilycarriedwithitconstantlythesamemeaning。This，thoughmenmakeashiftwithintheordinaryoccurrencesoflife，wheretheyfinditnecessarytobeunderstood，andthereforetheymakesignstilltheyareso；yetthisinsignificancyintheirwords，whentheycometoreasonconcerningeithertheirtenetsorinterest，manifestlyfillstheirdiscoursewithabundanceofemptyunintelligiblenoiseandjargon，especiallyinmoralmatters，wherethewordsforthemostpartstandingforarbitraryandnumerouscollectionsofideas，notregularlyandpermanentlyunitedinnature，theirbaresoundsareoftenonlythoughton，oratleastveryobscureanduncertainnotionsannexedtothem。
Mentakethewordstheyfindinuseamongsttheirneighbors；andthattheymaynotseemignorantwhattheystandfor，usethemconfidently，withoutmuchtroublingtheirheadsaboutacertainfixedmeaning；whereby，besidestheeaseofit，theyobtainthisadvantage，That，asinsuchdiscoursestheyseldomareintheright，sotheyareasseldomtobeconvincedthattheyareinthewrong；itbeingallonetogoabouttodrawthosemenoutoftheirmistakeswhohavenosettlednotions，astodispossessavagrantofhishabitationwhohasnosettledabode。ThisIguesstobeso；andeveryonemayobserveinhimselfandotherswhetheritbesoornot。
5。Unsteadyapplicationofthem。Secondly，Anothergreatabuseofwordsisinconstancyintheuseofthem。Itishardtofindadiscoursewrittenonanysubject，especiallyofcontroversy，whereinoneshallnotobserve，ifhereadwithattention，thesamewords(andthosecommonlythemostmaterialinthediscourse，anduponwhichtheargumentturns)usedsometimesforonecollectionofsimpleideas，andsometimesforanother；whichisaperfectabuseoflanguage。Wordsbeingintendedforsignsofmyideas，tomakethemknowntoothers，notbyanynaturalsignification，butbyavoluntaryimposition，itisplaincheatandabuse，whenImakethemstandsometimesforonethingandsometimesforanother；thewilfuldoingwhereofcanbeimputedtonothingbutgreatfolly，orgreaterdishonesty。Andaman，inhisaccountswithanothermay，withasmuchfairnessmakethecharactersofnumbersstandsometimesforoneandsometimesforanothercollectionofunits:v。g。thischaracter3，standsometimesforthree，sometimesforfour，andsometimesforeight，asinhisdiscourseorreasoningmakethesamewordsstandfordifferentcollectionsofsimpleideas。Ifmenshoulddosointheirreckonings，Iwonderwhowouldhavetodowiththem？Onewhowouldspeakthusintheaffairsandbusinessoftheworld，andcall8
sometimesseven，andsometimesnine，asbestservedhisadvantage，wouldpresentlyhaveclappeduponhim，oneofthetwonamesmenarecommonlydisgustedwith。Andyetinarguingsandlearnedcontests，thesamesortofproceedingspassescommonlyforwitandlearning；buttomeitappearsagreaterdishonestythanthemisplacingofcountersinthecastingupadebt；andthecheatthegreater，byhowmuchtruthisofgreaterconcernmentandvaluethanmoney。
6。III。Affectedobscurity，asinthePeripatetickandothersectsofphilosophy。Thirdly，Anotherabuseoflanguageisanaffectedobscurity；byeitherapplyingoldwordstonewandunusualsignifications；orintroducingnewandambiguousterms，withoutdefiningeither；orelseputtingthemsotogether，asmayconfoundtheirordinarymeaning。ThoughthePeripatetickphilosophyhasbeenmosteminentinthisway，yetothersectshavenotbeenwhollyclearofit。Therearescarceanyofthemthatarenotcumberedwithsomedifficulties(suchistheimperfectionofhumanknowledge，)whichtheyhavebeenfaintocoverwithobscurityofterms，andtoconfoundthesignificationofwords，which，likeamistbeforepeople’seyes，mighthindertheirweakpartsfrombeingdiscovered。Thatbodyandextensionincommonuse，standfortwodistinctideas，isplaintoanyonethatwillbutreflectalittle。Forweretheirsignificationpreciselythesame，itwouldbeasproper，andasintelligibletosay，\"thebodyofanextension，\"asthe\"extensionofabody\"；andyettherearethosewhofinditnecessarytoconfoundtheirsignification。Tothisabuse，andthemischiefsofconfoundingthesignificationofwords，logic，andtheliberalsciencesastheyhavebeenhandledintheschools，havegivenreputation；andtheadmiredArtofDisputinghathaddedmuchtothenaturalimperfectionoflanguages，whilstithasbeenmadeuseofandfittedtoperplexthesignificationofwords，morethantodiscovertheknowledgeandtruthofthings:andhethatwilllookintothatsortoflearnedwritings，willfindthewordstheremuchmoreobscure，uncertain，andundeterminedintheirmeaning，thantheyareinordinaryconversation。
7。Logicanddisputehavemuchcontributedtothis。Thisisunavoidablytobeso，wheremen’spartsandlearningareestimatedbytheirskillindisputing。Andifreputationandrewardshallattendtheseconquests，whichdependmostlyonthefinenessandnicetiesofwords，itisnowonderifthewitofmansoemployed，shouldperplex，involve，andsubtilizethesignificationofsounds，soasnevertowantsomethingtosayinopposingordefendinganyquestion；thevictorybeingadjudgednottohimwhohadtruthonhisside，butthelastwordinthedispute。
8。Callingit\"subtlety。\"This，thoughaveryuselessskin，andthatwhichIthinkthedirectoppositetothewaysofknowledge，hathyetpassedhithertounderthelaudableandesteemednamesofsubtletyandacuteness，andhashadtheapplauseoftheschools，andencouragementofonepartofthelearnedmenoftheworld。Andnowonder，sincethephilosophersofold，(thedisputingandwranglingphilosophersImean，suchasLucianwittilyandwithreasontaxes)，andtheSchoolmensince，aimingatgloryandesteem，fortheirgreatanduniversalknowledge，easieragreatdealtobepretendedtothanreallyacquired，foundthisagoodexpedienttocovertheirignorance，withacuriousandinexplicablewebofperplexedwords，andprocuretothemselvestheadmirationofothers，byunintelligibleterms，theaptertoproducewonderbecausetheycouldnotbeunderstood:whilstitappearsinallhistory，thattheseprofounddoctorswerenowisernormoreusefulthantheirneighbours，andbroughtbutsmalladvantagetohumanlifeorthesocietieswhereintheylived:unlessthecoiningofnewwords，wheretheyproducednonewthingstoapplythemto，ortheperplexingorobscuringthesignificationofoldones，andsobringingallthingsintoquestionanddispute，wereathingprofitabletothelifeofman，orworthycommendationandreward。
9。Thislearningverylittlebenefitssociety。For，notwithstandingtheselearneddisputants，theseall-knowingdoctors，itwastotheunscholasticstatesmanthatthegovernmentsoftheworldowedtheirpeace，defence，andliberties；andfromtheilliterateandcontemnedmechanic(anameofdisgrace)thattheyreceivedtheimprovementsofusefularts。Nevertheless，thisartificialignorance，andlearnedgibberish，prevailedmightilyintheselastages，bytheinterestandartificeofthosewhofoundnoeasierwaytothatpitchofauthorityanddominiontheyhaveattained，thanbyamusingthemenofbusiness，andignorant，withhardwords，oremployingtheingeniousandidleinintricatedisputesaboutunintelligibleterms，andholdingthemperpetuallyentangledinthatendlesslabyrinth。Besides，thereisnosuchwaytogainadmittance，orgivedefencetostrangeandabsurddoctrines，astoguardthemroundaboutwithlegionsofobscure，doubtful，andundefinedwords。
Whichyetmaketheseretreatsmorelikethedensofrobbers，orholesoffoxes，thanthefortressesoffairwarriors:which，ifitbehardtogetthemoutof，itisnotforthestrengththatisinthem，butthebriarsandthorns，andtheobscurityofthethicketstheyarebesetwith。Foruntruthbeingunacceptabletothemindofman，thereisnootherdefenceleftforabsurditybutobscurity。
10。Butdestroystheinstrumentsofknowledgeandcommunication。
Thuslearnedignorance，andthisartofkeepingeveninquisitivemenfromtrueknowledge，hathbeenpropagatedintheworld，andhathmuchperplexed，whilstitpretendedtoinformtheunderstanding。Forweseethatotherwell-meaningandwisemen，whoseeducationandpartshadnotacquiredthatacuteness，couldintelligiblyexpressthemselvestooneanother；andinitsplainusemakeabenefitoflanguage。Butthoughunlearnedmenwellenoughunderstoodthewordswhiteandblack，&c。，andhadconstantnotionsoftheideassignifiedbythosewords；
yettherewerephilosophersfoundwhohadlearningandsubtletyenoughtoprovethatsnowwasblack；i。e。toprovethatwhitewasblack。
Wherebytheyhadtheadvantagetodestroytheinstrumentsandmeansofdiscourse，conversation，instruction，andsociety；whilst，withgreatartandsubtlety，theydidnomorebutperplexandconfoundthesignificationofwords，andtherebyrenderlanguagelessusefulthantherealdefectsofithadmadeit；agiftwhichtheilliteratehadnotattainedto。
11。Asusefulastoconfoundthesoundsthatthelettersofthealphabetstandfor。Theselearnedmendidequallyinstructmen’sunderstandings，andprofittheirlives，ashewhoshouldalterthesignificationofknowncharacters，and，byasubtledeviceoflearning，farsurpassingthecapacityoftheilliterate，dull，andvulgar，shouldinhiswritingshowthathecouldputAforB，andD
forE，&c。，tothenosmalladmirationandbenefitofhisreader。Itbeingassenselesstoputblack，whichisawordagreedontostandforonesensibleidea，toputit，Isay，foranother，orthecontraryidea；i。e。tocallsnowblack，astoputthismarkA，whichisacharacteragreedontostandforonemodificationofsound，madebyacertainmotionoftheorgansofspeech，forB，whichisagreedontostandforanothermodificationofsound，madebyanothercertainmodeoftheorgansofspeech。
12。Thisarthasperplexedreligionandjustice。Norhaththismischiefstoppedinlogicalniceties，orcuriousemptyspeculations；
ithathinvadedthegreatconcernmentsofhumanlifeandsociety；
obscuredandperplexedthematerialtruthsoflawanddivinity；
broughtconfusion，disorder，anduncertaintyintotheaffairsofmankind；andifnotdestroyed，yetinagreatmeasurerendereduseless，thesetwogreatrules，religionandjustice。WhathavethegreatestpartofthecommentsanddisputesuponthelawsofGodandmanservedfor，buttomakethemeaningmoredoubtful，andperplexthesense？Whathavebeentheeffectofthosemultipliedcuriousdistinctions，andacuteniceties，butobscurityanduncertainty，leavingthewordsmoreunintelligible，andthereadermoreataloss？Howelsecomesittopassthatprinces，speakingorwritingtotheirservants，intheirordinarycommandsareeasilyunderstood；
speakingtotheirpeople，intheirlaws，arenotso？And，asI
remarkedbefore，dothitnotoftenhappenthatamanofanordinarycapacityverywellunderstandsatext，oralaw，thathereads，tillheconsultsanexpositor，orgoestocounsel；who，bythattimehehathdoneexplainingthem，makesthewordssignifyeithernothingatall，orwhathepleases。
13Andoughtnottopassforlearning。Whetheranyby-interestsoftheseprofessionshaveoccasionedthis，Iwillnothereexamine；butI
leaveittobeconsidered，whetheritwouldnotbewellformankind，whoseconcernmentitistoknowthingsastheyare，andtodowhattheyought，andnottospendtheirlivesintalkingaboutthem，ortossingwordstoandfro；-whetheritwouldnotbewell，Isay，thattheuseofwordsweremadeplainanddirect；andthatlanguage，whichwasgivenusfortheimprovementofknowledgeandbondofsociety，shouldnotbeemployedtodarkentruthandunsettlepeople’srights；toraisemists，andrenderunintelligiblebothmoralityandreligion？Orthatatleast，ifthiswillhappen，itshouldnotbethoughtlearningorknowledgetodoso？
14。IV。Bytakingwordsforthings。Fourthly，Anothergreatabuseofwords，isthetakingthemforthings。This，thoughitinsomedegreeconcernsallnamesingeneral，yetmoreparticularlyaffectsthoseofsubstances。Tothisabusethosemenaremostsubjectwhomostconfinetheirthoughtstoanyonesystem，andgivethemselvesupintoafirmbeliefoftheperfectionofanyreceivedhypothesis:wherebytheycometobepersuadedthatthetermsofthatsectaresosuitedtothenatureofthings，thattheyperfectlycorrespondwiththeirrealexistence。WhoistherethathasbeenbredupinthePeripatetickphilosophy，whodoesnotthinktheTenNames，underwhicharerankedtheTenPredicaments，tobeexactlyconformabletothenatureofthings？Whoisthereofthatschoolthatisnotpersuadedthatsubstantialforms，vegetativesouls，abhorrenceofavacuum，intentionalspecies，&c。，aresomethingreal？Thesewordsmenhavelearnedfromtheirveryentranceuponknowledge，andhavefoundtheirmastersandsystemslaygreatstressuponthem:andthereforetheycannotquittheopinion，thattheyareconformabletonature，andaretherepresentationsofsomethingthatreallyexists。ThePlatonistshavetheirsouloftheworld，andtheEpicureanstheirendeavourtowardsmotionintheiratomswhenatrest。Thereisscarceanysectinphilosophyhasnotadistinctsetoftermsthatothersunderstandnot。Butyetthisgibberish，which，intheweaknessofhumanunderstanding，servessowelltopalliatemen’signorance，andcovertheirerrors，comes，byfamiliaruseamongstthoseofthesametribe，toseemthemostimportantpartoflanguage，andofallotherthetermsthemostsignificant:andshouldaerialandaetherialvehiclescomeonce，bytheprevalencyofthatdoctrine，tobegenerallyreceivedanywhere，nodoubtthosetermswouldmakeimpressionsonmen’sminds，soastoestablishtheminthepersuasionoftherealityofsuchthings，asmuchasPeripatetickformsandintentionalspecieshaveheretoforedone。
15。Instance，inmatter。Howmuchnamestakenforthingsareapttomisleadtheunderstanding，theattentivereadingofphilosophicalwriterswouldabundantlydiscover；andthatperhapsinwordslittlesuspectedofanysuchmisuse。Ishallinstanceinoneonly，andthataveryfamiliarone。Howmanyintricatedisputeshavetherebeenaboutmatter，asifthereweresomesuchthingreallyinnature，distinctfrombody；asitisevidentthewordmatterstandsforanideadistinctfromtheideaofbody？Foriftheideasthesetwotermsstoodforwerepreciselythesame，theymightindifferentlyinallplacesbeputforoneanother。Butweseethatthoughitbepropertosay，Thereisonematterofallbodies，onecannotsay，Thereisonebodyofallmatters:wefamiliarlysayonebodyisbiggerthananother；butitsoundsharsh(andIthinkisneverused)tosayonematterisbiggerthananother。Whencecomesthis，then？Viz。fromhence:that，thoughmatterandbodybenotreallydistinct，butwhereverthereistheonethereistheother；yetmatterandbodystandfortwodifferentconceptions，whereoftheoneisincomplete，andbutapartoftheother。Forbodystandsforasolidextendedfiguredsubstance，whereofmatterisbutapartialandmoreconfusedconception；itseemingtometobeusedforthesubstanceandsolidityofbody，withouttakinginitsextensionandfigure:andthereforeitisthat，speakingofmatter，wespeakofitalwaysasone，becauseintruthitexpresslycontainsnothingbuttheideaofasolidsubstance，whichiseverywherethesame，everywhereuniform。Thisbeingourideaofmatter，wenomoreconceiveorspeakofdifferentmattersintheworldthanwedoofdifferentsolidities；thoughwebothconceiveandspeakofdifferentbodies，becauseextensionandfigurearecapableofvariation。But，sincesoliditycannotexistwithoutextensionandfigure，thetakingmattertobethenameofsomethingreallyexistingunderthatprecision，hasnodoubtproducedthoseobscureandunintelligiblediscoursesanddisputes，whichhavefilledtheheadsandbooksofphilosophersconcerningmateriaprima；whichimperfectionorabuse，howfaritmayconcernagreatmanyothergeneraltermsI
leavetobeconsidered。This，Ithink，Imayatleastsay，thatweshouldhaveagreatmanyfewerdisputesintheworld，ifwordsweretakenforwhattheyare，thesignsofourideasonly；andnotforthingsthemselves。For，whenweargueaboutmatter，oranytheliketerm，wetrulyargueonlyabouttheideaweexpressbythatsound，whetherthatpreciseideaagreetoanythingreallyexistinginnatureorno。Andifmenwouldtellwhatideastheymaketheirwordsstandfor，therecouldnotbehalfthatobscurityorwranglinginthesearchorsupportoftruththatthereis。
16。Thismakeserrorslasting。Butwhateverinconveniencefollowsfromthismistakeofwords，thisIamsure，that，byconstantandfamiliaruse，theycharmmenintonotionsfarremotefromthetruthofthings。Itwouldbeahardmattertopersuadeanyonethatthewordswhichhisfather，orschoolmaster，theparsonoftheparish，orsuchareverenddoctorused，signifiednothingthatreallyexistedinnature:
whichperhapsisnoneoftheleastcausesthatmenaresohardlydrawntoquittheirmistakes，eveninopinionspurelyphilosophical，andwheretheyhavenootherinterestbuttruth。Forthewordstheyhavealongtimebeenusedto，remainingfirmintheirminds，itisnowonderthatthewrongnotionsannexedtothemshouldnotberemoved。
17。V。Bysettingthemintheplaceofwhattheycannotsignify。
FifthlyAnotherabuseofwordsisthesettingthemintheplaceofthingswhichtheydoorcanbynomeanssignify。Wemayobservethatinthegeneralnamesofsubstanceswhereofthenominalessencesareonlyknowntouswhenweputthemintopropositions，andaffirmordenyanythingaboutthem，wedomostcommonlytacitlysupposeorintend，theyshouldstandfortherealessenceofacertainsortofsubstances。For，whenamansaysgoldismalleable，hemeansandwouldinsinuatesomethingmorethanthis。ThatwhatIcallgoldismalleable，(thoughtrulyitamountstonomore，)butwouldhavethisunderstood，viz。Thatgold，i。e。whathastherealessenceofgold，ismalleable；whichamountstothusmuch，thatmalleablenessdependson，andisinseparablefromtherealessenceofgold。Butaman，notknowingwhereinthatrealessenceconsists，theconnexioninhismindofmalleablenessisnottrulywithanessenceheknowsnot，butonlywiththesoundgoldheputsforit。Thus，whenwesaythatanimalrationaleis，andanimalimplumebipeslatisunguibusisnotagooddefinitionofaman；itisplainwesupposethenamemaninthiscasetostandfortherealessenceofaspecies，andwouldsignifythat\"arationalanimal\"betterdescribedthatrealessencethan\"atwo-leggedanimalwithbroadnails，andwithoutfeathers。\"Forelse，whymightnotPlatoasproperlymakethewordanthropos，orman，standforhiscomplexidea，madeupoftheideaofabody，distinguishedfromothersbyacertainshapeandotheroutwardappearances，asAristotlemakethecomplexideatowhichhegavethenameanthropos，orman，ofbodyandthefacultyofreasoningjoinedtogether；unlessthenameanthropos，orman，weresupposedtostandforsomethingelsethanwhatitsignifies；andtobeputintheplaceofsomeotherthingthantheideaamanprofesseshewouldexpressbyit？
18。V。g。Puttingthemfortherealessencesofsubstances。Itistruethenamesofsubstanceswouldbemuchmoreuseful，andpropositionsmadeinthemmuchmorecertain，weretherealessencesofsubstancestheideasinourmindswhichthosewordssignified。Anditisforwantofthoserealessencesthatourwordsconveysolittleknowledgeorcertaintyinourdiscoursesaboutthem；andthereforethemind，toremovethatimperfectionasmuchasitcan，makesthem，byasecretsupposition，tostandforathinghavingthatrealessence，asiftherebyitmadesomenearerapproachestoit。
For，thoughthewordmanorgoldsignifynothingtrulybutacomplexideaofpropertiesunitedtogetherinonesortofsubstances；yetthereisscarceanybody，intheuseofthesewords，butoftensupposeseachofthosenamestostandforathinghavingtherealessenceonwhichthesepropertiesdepend。Whichissofarfromdiminishingtheimperfectionofourwords，thatbyaplainabuseitaddstoit，whenwewouldmakethemstandforsomething，which，notbeinginourcomplexidea，thenameweusecannowaysbethesignof。
19。Hencewethinkchangeofourcomplexideasofsubstancesnottochangetheirspecies。Thisshowsusthereasonwhyinmixedmodesanyoftheideasthatmakethecompositionofthecomplexonebeingleftoutorchanged，itisallowedtobeanotherthing，i。e。tobeofanotherspecies，asisplaininchance-medley，manslaughter，murder，parricide，&c。Thereasonwhereofis，becausethecomplexideasignifiedbythatnameistherealaswellasnominalessence；andthereisnosecretreferenceofthatnametoanyotheressencebutthat。Butinsubstances，itisnotso。Forthoughinthatcalledgold，oneputsintohiscomplexideawhatanotherleavesout，andviceversa:yetmendonotusuallythinkthatthereforethespeciesischanged:becausetheysecretlyintheirmindsreferthatname，andsupposeitannexedtoarealimmutableessenceofathingexisting，onwhichthosepropertiesdepend。Hethataddstohiscomplexideaofgoldthatoffixednessandsolubilityinaquaregia，whichheputnotinitbefore，isnotthoughttohavechangedthespecies；butonlytohaveamoreperfectidea，byaddinganothersimpleidea，whichisalwaysinfactjoinedwiththoseother，ofwhichhisformercomplexideaconsisted。Butthisreferenceofthenametoathing，whereofwehavenottheidea，issofarfromhelpingatall，thatitonlyservesthemoretoinvolveusindifficulties。Forbythistacitreferencetotherealessenceofthatspeciesofbodies，thewordgold(which，bystandingforamoreorlessperfectcollectionofsimpleideas，servestodesignthatsortofbodywellenoughincivildiscourse)comestohavenosignificationatall，beingputforsomewhatwhereofwehavenoideaatall，andsocansignifynothingatall，whenthebodyitselfisaway。Forhoweveritmaybethoughtallone，yet，ifwellconsidered，itwillbefoundaquitedifferentthing，toargueaboutgoldinname，andaboutaparcelinthebodyitself，v。g。apieceofleaf-goldlaidbeforeus；thoughindiscoursewearefaintosubstitutethenameforthething。
20。Thecauseofthisabuse，asuppositionofnature’sworkingalwaysregularly，insettingboundariestospecies。ThatwhichIthinkverymuchdisposesmentosubstitutetheirnamesfortherealessencesofspecies，isthesuppositionbeforementioned，thatnatureworksregularlyintheproductionofthings，andsetstheboundariestoeachofthosespecies，bygivingexactlythesamerealinternalconstitutiontoeachindividualwhichwerankunderonegeneralname。Whereasanyonewhoobservestheirdifferentqualitiescanhardlydoubt，thatmanyoftheindividuals，calledbythesamename，are，intheirinternalconstitution，asdifferentonefromanotherasseveralofthosewhicharerankedunderdifferentspecificnames。Thissupposition，however，thatthesamepreciseandinternalconstitutiongoesalwayswiththesamespecificname，makesmenforwardtotakethosenamesfortherepresentativesofthoserealessences；thoughindeedtheysignifynothingbutthecomplexideastheyhaveintheirmindswhentheyusethem。Sothat，ifImaysosay，signifyingonething，andbeingsupposedfor，orputintheplaceofanother，theycannotbut，insuchakindofuse，causeagreatdealofuncertaintyinmen’sdiscourses；especiallyinthosewhohavethoroughlyimbibedthedoctrineofsubstantialforms，wherebytheyfirmlyimaginetheseveralspeciesofthingstobedeterminedanddistinguished。
21。Thisabusecontainstwofalsesuppositions。Buthoweverpreposterousandabsurditbetomakeournamesstandforideaswehavenot，or(whichisallone)essencesthatweknownot，itbeingineffecttomakeourwordsthesignsofnothing；yetitisevidenttoanyonewhoeversolittlereflectsontheusemenmakeoftheirwords，thatthereisnothingmorefamiliar。Whenamanaskswhetherthisorthatthinghesees，letitbeadrill，oramonstrousfoetus，beamanorno；itisevidentthequestionisnot，Whetherthatparticularthingagreetohiscomplexideaexpressedbythenameman:butwhetherithasinittherealessenceofaspeciesofthingswhichhesupposeshisnamemantostandfor。Inwhichwayofusingthenamesofsubstances，therearethesefalsesuppositionscontained:-
First，thattherearecertainpreciseessencesaccordingtowhichnaturemakesallparticularthings，andbywhichtheyaredistinguishedintospecies。Thateverythinghasarealconstitution，wherebyitiswhatitis，andonwhichitssensiblequalitiesdepend，ispastdoubt:butIthinkithasbeenprovedthatthismakesnotthedistinctionofspeciesaswerankthem，northeboundariesoftheirnames。
Secondly，thistacitlyalsoinsinuates，asifwehadideasoftheseproposedessences。Fortowhatpurposeelseisit，toinquirewhetherthisorthatthinghavetherealessenceofthespeciesman，ifwedidnotsupposethatthereweresuchaspecificessenceknown？
Whichyetisutterlyfalse。Andthereforesuchapplicationofnamesaswouldmakethemstandforideaswhichwehavenot，mustneedscausegreatdisorderindiscoursesandreasoningsaboutthem，andbeagreatinconvenienceinourcommunicationbywords。
22。VI。Byproceedinguponthesuppositionthatthewordsweusehaveacertainandevidentsignificationwhichothermencannotbutunderstand。Sixthly，thereremainsyetanothermoregeneral，thoughperhapslessobserved，abuseofwords；andthatis，thatmenhavingbyalongandfamiliaruseannexedtothemcertainideas，theyareapttoimaginesonearandnecessaryaconnexionbetweenthenamesandthesignificationtheyusethemin，thattheyforwardlysupposeonecannotbutunderstandwhattheirmeaningis；andthereforeoneoughttoacquiesceinthewordsdelivered，asifitwerepastdoubtthat，intheuseofthosecommonreceivedsounds，thespeakerandhearerhadnecessarilythesamepreciseideas。Whencepresuming，thatwhentheyhaveindiscourseusedanyterm，theyhavethereby，asitwere，setbeforeotherstheverythingtheytalkedof。Andsolikewisetakingthewordsofothersasnaturallystandingforjustwhattheythemselveshavebeenaccustomedtoapplythemto，theynevertroublethemselvestoexplaintheirown，orunderstandclearlyothers’
meaning。Fromwhencecommonlyproceedsnoise，andwrangling，withoutimprovementorinformation；whilstmentakewordstobetheconstantregularmarksofagreednotions，whichintrutharenomorebutthevoluntaryandunsteadysignsoftheirownideas。Andyetmenthinkitstrange，ifindiscourse，or(whereitisoftenabsolutelynecessary)indispute，onesometimesasksthemeaningoftheirterms:thoughthearguingsonemayeverydayobserveinconversationmakeitevident，thattherearefewnamesofcomplexideaswhichanytwomenuseforthesamejustprecisecollection。Itishardtonameawordwhichishardtonameawordwhichwillnotbeaclearinstanceofthis。Lifeisaterm，nonemorefamiliar。Anyonealmostwouldtakeitforanaffronttobeaskedwhathemeantbyit。Andyetifitcomesinquestion，whetheraplantthatliesreadyformedintheseedhavelife；whethertheembryoinaneggbeforeincubation，oramaninaswoonwithoutsenseormotion，bealiveorno；itiseasytoperceivethataclear，distinct，settledideadoesnotalwaysaccompanytheuseofsoknownawordasthatoflifeis。Somegrossandconfusedconceptionsmenindeedordinarilyhave，towhichtheyapplythecommonwordsoftheirlanguage；andsuchalooseuseoftheirwordsservesthemwellenoughintheirordinarydiscoursesoraffairs。Butthisisnotsufficientforphilosophicalinquiries。
Knowledgeandreasoningrequireprecisedeterminateideas。Andthoughmenwillnotbesoimportunatelydullasnottounderstandwhatotherssay，withoutdemandinganexplicationoftheirterms；norsotroublesomelycriticalastocorrectothersintheuseofthewordstheyreceivefromthem:yet，wheretruthandknowledgeareconcernedinthecase，Iknownotwhatfaultitcanbe，todesiretheexplicationofwordswhosesenseseemsdubious；orwhyamanshouldbeashamedtoownhisignoranceinwhatsenseanothermanuseshiswords；
sincehehasnootherwayofcertainlyknowingitbutbybeinginformed。Thisabuseoftakingwordsupontrusthasnowherespreadsofar，norwithsoilleffects，asamongstmenofletters。Themultiplicationandobstinacyofdisputes，whichhavesolaidwastetheintellectualworld，isowingtonothingmorethantothisilluseofwords。Forthoughitbegenerallybelievedthatthereisgreatdiversityofopinionsinthevolumesandvarietyofcontroversiestheworldisdistractedwith；yetthemostIcanfindthatthecontendinglearnedmenofdifferentpartiesdo，intheirarguingsonewithanother，is，thattheyspeakdifferentlanguages。ForIamapttoimagine，thatwhenanyofthem，quittingterms，thinkuponthings，andknowwhattheythink，theythinkallthesame:thoughperhapswhattheywouldhavebedifferent。
