524 
fist, aweful as it was in its nature and 
confequences, a ludicrous and contumeli- 
ous, inftead of an impofing, afpeét. 
In this conteft, Whether Immaterialif{m 
be the true and fatisfactory bypothefis, or be 
not, I fhall, with your aid, as JUDGES of 
THE FIELD, and, I truft, with the ap- 
probation of THE PUBLIC, the SPECTA- 
ToRs of the comBaT, confine my adver- 
fary to thofe weapons which belong to 
the rites and honourable ufe of chivalry : 
on thofe terms he has entered the lifts, and 
thrown down his gauntlet ; and on thofe 
alone I encounter him. 
And now. to drop the figure where he 
has dropped it, I fhall fmply content my- 
felf with faying, that wherever vidzcule is 
intreduced as a te? of truth, it has the 
misfortune of other tefis ; you muft find 
jome clearer medium by which z¢/e/f may 
be tried. The reaton, or fentiments, or 
manners of an opponent may be bur- 
Jef{qued ; the prejudices of the day may be 
forced into the fervice of a queftion which 
is not temporary ; an argument for which 
no ferious anfwer occurs may be paffed 
over with affected contempt, or fo miftated 
as to have a ridiculous appearance: but, 
if any advantage feems to be thus gained, 
the manner of gaining it proves that the 
perfon who triumphs by fuch means either 
has a bgd caule, or does not fee how a 
good one fhould be maintained. If Iam 
unequal to the conteft, courtefy on the 
part of my epponent would have been ge- 
nerous ; and if equal, it would have been 
prudent. He fhall not, at all events, I 
truft, affect to fay, that Lam an ‘* ua- 
real antagonift.”” I have all the reality 
which my opponent can poffefs : all which 
the truth of exiftence will admit; on 
whatever hypothefis that truth and its con- 
fequences may beft ultimately be folved. 
Certanly I abide by my pofition, that 
“* in theorizing all unnecefary complexity is 
to be avoided; and J did think this would 
have been a poffulatum granted of courfe. 
My opponent cannot deny it to be Newzto- 
wian: that it is Baconian allo, I fhali preve 
that he ought as little to have queftioned. 
NEWTON applied the principles which 
Bacon had introduced: that in philofo- 
phizing we fhould reduce all tc experiment 
which admits of being brought to experi- 
ment. Whatever caufes experiment, ra- 
tionally initituced and purtued, obliges 
us to admit, fuch caufes, and neither more 
nor fewer, muft be regarded as ettablifh- 
ed by proof. And befide and above 
thefe are clear, f-lt evident, or at jeait de- 
monftrable, principles, which are not the 
fubject of experiment, but by which all 
Reply in Vindication of the Berkeleian Syftem. 
(July 1, 
experiments muft be tried. Prove by ex- 
periment, that the fuppofition of Matter zs 
neceflary to the folution of phenomena, and 
there is no unneceffary complexity in ad- 
mitting it. If there be unneceflary com= 
plexity in admitting it, the fuppofition of 
Matter is at leaft precarious, and ought to 
be rejected. 
But my opponent afferts, that *¢ there 
is perhaps no inftance in all nature of an 
effe&t refulting from a fingle ceule*.” 
In the firit place, a fizgle caufe is very 
different from a fingle effewce: and whe- 
ther two kzmds of being, effentially diffe- 
rent, concur in the effects which are pro- 
duced through the univerfe (matter and 
fpirit) ; or whether there be one kind of 
being only, mind; is the very queltion be- 
tween us. 
I would farther fay, that the proof of 
the waity of the fiffem of nature, whick 
rifes to our intellect the farther our re- 
fearches are extended, is, I apprehend, 
juftly taken by the beft and greateit philo- | 
fophers as a proof of the waity of the caufe. 
And I thal] prefently examine, whether, if 
the exiftence of matter d¢ admitted, it can 
properly be regarded as the cau/e of any 
thing. 
My opponent feems to be always look- 
ing tor fepbifms. He fays of me— 
‘Where are his arguments againf? the ex- 
iience of matter? TheEnquirer may have 
been inattentive; but afterreading more than 
once cubere thefe arguments ought to occur, 
not even the femblance of a fophifm feems at- 
tempted, though the annikilation of the uni- 
vere is at flake’. I fhould be afhamed 
indeed that a /ophi/m, and concerned that 
the femblance ot a fophi‘m, fhould occur in 
my effay on this fubje@ ; but the Enquirer 
has been indeed inattentive, or he would 
have found an argument againft the exift- 
ence of matter: an argument which 
fhould, I think, be conclutive to him on 
his own principles. ‘* Time, [pace, and 
motion (he lays) are none of them fub- 
frances.” If he abide by this concefiion, 
there is an end of his hypothefis, What 
he adds IT will not employ again him, 
that ‘they are the length, breadth, and 
thicknefs of the univerfe ,” becauie this is 
evisently a miftake. The/e expreifions are 
applicable to fpace only. But, if {pace be 
no fubftance, or be nothing ‘* extant,” as 
we agree it is not, there is then nothing 
in which matter can refide or be. If 
{pace be any thing, it is uncreated,eternal,, 
infinite, immutable: it 1s a proper and 
univerial fubitance ; the neceflary fupport 
SAF; 22a, 
are 
