124 A NT IE NT METAPHYSICS. Book II, 



things^ does operate without the p bant q/i a. It muft, hovever, be coa- 

 feiTv-'d, that we are fo muchiiiinierfed In matter from our firil coming 

 into this world, io much intangled with it, by the neceffity of our 

 mixed nature, that it is very difficult to think with perfed abdradion : 

 But, by much practice in fpeciilatlvs fciences, we come at laft to be 

 able to do it. Of this, I think, we need no other proof than the fci~ 

 ence of arithmetic^ with the ideas of which, though the mod abftraifl 

 of any, we become fo familiar, by condant ufe from our earlied youth, 



that 



totle believed that the vovj iicooitty.i; could operate by Itfelf, without any mixture of 

 •fenfe or phantafia, is evident from what he fays in chap. 6. of the fame book, That 

 this N«vf is, by its nature, feparated from body, unmixed, impaffive, and pure energy. 

 And that this is the opinion of his commentator Simplicius, is evident from his commen- 

 tary upon thepaflagc firfi: quoted. And Philoponus, in his commentary upon the laft 

 mentioned pafTage, enumerates the operations of intelledt without the (pajvras-i*, as 

 when it makes itfelf its objeil, when it contemplates divine^ or immaterial fubjlances^ 

 alfo when It contemplates generals, or whatever elfe can be apprehended without the 

 fenfes. And he fays this is alfo the opinion of Ariftotle. And, for further proof 

 that he is in the right as to Ariftotle's opinion, I refer the reader to the 9th chapter 

 •of the fame 3d book De /JnimA ; in the end of which he has thefe words, t* 5g 5T-g«« 



rjc y«r,>mTct rtvt ^nirei rev f^n ipayrxTfieiTu dvat ; « evc'i rxvrci (fo Philoponus reads it in 



place of t' «>.>.«£, as it is commonly printed) ipuvrxc^xTXy «aa' ovk. »vtv <pxiTx<ry.xrai. 

 Here Ariftotle is fpcaking of the common vaytux-rnj or notions of corporeal thmgs, 

 •which are unc^ouhtedly phantafmsj that is, the objecSls of the phantajia ; whereas, the rrj«. 

 T« voAuxrx that he here mentions, are, as Simplicius has well obferved upon the paf- 

 fage, our ideas of fubftances, and particularly of incorporeal fubftances : And he 

 fldtrs the doubt> whether they be not alio phant^fms ? and he folves it in his com- 

 mon way, by ufking -^ queftion j the anfwer of which is plain to thofc who are ac- 

 quainted with Ariftotle's manner, that they are not phantafms. though they could not 

 have exiftcvl without phantafms; that is, the ideas could not have been formed with- 

 out aiTiftance from 'J\\c phantafia ; which is certainly true of them as wcIJ as of every 

 othf; :dea. And, if thcic w re any doubts of our apprehenfion of fimple i-'eas 

 wiihoutth.:; affiitance of ihi- phantafui, 1 think Lh>.re can be none concerning our ap- 

 preiienhon of them wncn combined in piopolirons, efpeciai.y the e propouiiuis liiat 

 ^rcca.ki,' axiom., !u..hasthis ' that every toing muji cit he be or not be.' -.tc: wnat 

 Ph lopi.nus has i.' . coiutjuiu:^ mcic axioma m his mtrodutuon to his commen- 

 tary u^un the DooKi De Auirna. 



