OF MANS SOULE. Chap. VI. 63 



hand, there is a fecret exclusion of any thing that is not in the defi- 

 nition oUhand.it followcth that in ourfpeechwemuftfay, that 

 a hand is not a foot. Likcwife though it be conk fled, that the 

 thing which is rationality is alfo rifbility, neverthtleflc , it is a 

 folecifme in Logick, to fay that rationality is rifibilitj becaofe it 

 is the nature of thefe abft rafted names, to confine their fignifyca- 

 tionstoone definition; and the deiinitions of thefc two termcs 

 aredivers. Out of this confederation it followeth clearly , that 

 feeing the nature of parts, is contrary to the nature of identityjand 

 that the foule in her judgements worketh altogether by identity, 

 itisimpofliblcthat her operations fhould confift of parts, or in 

 any fort rtfemble any proceeding of Quantitative things. 



The like will be convinced out of the oppofition we finde in 2 . 

 our thoughts. In it we may confidtr two things : firft the ge- The fame is 

 neration of it : next,the incompofllbility of oppofites in the foul, proved by the 

 To begin with the firft : we tee that in our fpeaking,oppo(ition is ma " n " ; f a P" 

 produced by the addition of this word Not : as when we fay, net {^fi t i" n jjfa ^ 

 a HUM, not * penny, not A word : and therefore it followeth, that negative judg- 

 in our foule there is a notion of it, correspondent to the word mem. 

 thatexprefltth it. Now, feeing that a notion is a thirg, and 

 that it is the, likenefle ofits objtft, or rather the fame with the 

 object : let us caft about, how wefhould of parts andot quan- 

 tity, make a nothing, or an identification to not : and when we 

 find, that it is ridiculous and abfurd to goe about it, let us con- 

 clude, that the manner of working, which our foule ufeth, is far 

 different from that which is ufed in bodies, and among materiall 

 things. 



And if you objecT 1 , that not oncly abcdy, but even any other 

 fubftance whatfoevcr (fuppofe- it as fpirituall as you willjcannot 

 be either like,or identifyed tonothisg; and therefore this argu- 

 ment will as well prove that the foule is not a thing or fubftance, 

 as ti at it is not a body : we anfwer,that it is evident out of what 

 we have already faid,that the understanding is not the objects it 

 underftandeth, by way of fimilitude, but by a higher meancs ; 

 which we have (hewed to be by. way offtejpefts. Now then^he 

 rcfpecl: which the thing hath to another thu;g, by not having (uch 

 a refpeft unto it, as a third thing formerly confidertd hath there- 

 unto, may be exprefled in way of Re/peffs, though it cannot in 

 wayoffiHulitude: and fo our understanding is able toexprefle, 



what 



