Contents:
Secondly, I shall endeavour to shew what knowledge the understanding hath by those ideas; and the certainty, evidence, and extent of it. Thirdly, I shall make some enquiry into the nature and grounds of faith, or opinion; whereby I mean that assent, which we give to any proposition as true, of whose truth yet we have no certain knowledge: If, by this enquiry into the nature of the understanding, I can discover the powers thereof; how far they reach; to what things they are in any degree proportionate; and where they fail us: I suppose it may be of use to prevail with the busy mind of man, to be more cautious in meddling with things exceeding its comprehension; to stop when it is at the utmost extent of its tether; and to sit down in a quiet ignorance of those things, which, upon examination, are found to be beyond the reach of our capacities.
We should not then perhaps be so forward, out of an affectation of an universal knowledge, to raise questions, and perplex ourselves and others with disputes about things, to which our understandings are not suited; and of which we cannot frame in our minds any clear or distinct perceptions, or whereof as it has perhaps too often happened we have not any notions at all. If we can find out how far the understanding can extend its view, how far it has faculties to attain certainty, and in what cases it can only judge and guess; we may learn to content ourselves with what is attainable by us in this state.
For, though the comprehension of our understandings comes exceeding short of the vast extent of things; yet we shall have cause enough to magnify the bountiful author of our being, for that proportion and degree of knowledge he has bestowed on us, so far above all the rest of the inhabitants of this our mansion. Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them as St. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments, that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their maker, and the sight of their own duties.
Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight and satisfaction; if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp every thing. We shall not have much reason to complain of the narrowness of our minds, if we will but employ them about what may be of use to us; for of that they are very capable: It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant, who would not attend his business by candle-light, to plead that he had not broad sun-shine.
The candle, that is set up in us, shines bright enough for all our purposes. The discoveries we can make with this, ought to satisfy us; and we shall then use our understandings right, when we entertain all objects in that way and proportion that they are suited to our faculties, and upon those grounds they are capable of being proposed to us, and not peremptorily, or intemperately require demonstration, and demand certainty, where probability only is to be had, and which is sufficient to govern all our concernments.
If we will disbelieve every things, because we certainly cannot know all things; we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he, who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly. When we know our own strength, we shall the better know what to undertake with hopes of success: It is of great use to the sailor, to know the length of his line, though he cannot with it fathom all the depths of the ocean. It is well he knows, that it is long enough to reach the bottom, at such places as are necessary to direct his voyage, and caution him against running upon shoals that may ruin him.
Our business here is not to know all things, but those which concern our conduct. If we can find out those measures, whereby a rational creature, put in that state in which man is in this world, may, and ought to govern his opinions, and actions depending thereon, we need not to be troubled that some other things escape our knowledge. This was that which gave the first rise to this essay concerning the understanding. For I thought that the first step towards satisfying several enquiries, the mind of man was very apt to run into, was to take a survey of our own understandings, examine our own powers, and see to what things they were adapted.
Till that was done, I suspected we began at the wrong end, and in vain sought for satisfaction in a quiet and sure possession of truths that most concerned us, whilst we let loose our thoughts into the vast ocean of being; as if all that boundless extent were the natural and undoubted possession of our understandings, wherein there was nothing exempt from its decisions, or that escaped its comprehension.
Thus men extending their enquiries beyond their capacities, and letting their thoughts wander into those depths, where they can find no sure footing; it is no wonder, that they raise questions, and multiply disputes, which, never coming to any clear resolution, are proper only to continue and increase their doubts, and to confirm them at last in perfect scepticism.
Whereas, were the capacities of our understandings well considered, the extent of our knowledge once discovered, and the horizon found, which sets the bounds between the enlightened and dark parts of things, between Edition: Thus much I thought necessary to say concerning the occasion of this enquiry into human understanding.
It being that term, which, I think, serves best to stand for whatsoever is the object of the understanding when a man thinks; I have used it to express whatever is meant by phantasm, notion, species, or whatever it is which the mind can be employed about in thinking; and I could not avoid frequently using it. It would be sufficient to convince unprejudiced readers of the falseness of this supposition, if I should only shew as I hope I shall in the following parts of this discourse how men, barely by the use of their natural faculties, may attain to all the knowledge they have, without the help of any innate impressions; and may arrive at certainty, without any such original notions or principles.
For I imagine any one will easily grant, that it would be impertinent to suppose, the ideas of colours innate in a creature, to whom God hath given sight, and a power to receive them by the eyes, from external objects: But because a man is not permitted without censure to follow his own thoughts in the search of truth, when they lead him ever so little out of the common road; I shall set down the reasons that made me doubt of the truth of that opinion, as an excuse for my mistake, if I be in one; which I leave to be considered by those, who, with me, dispose themselves to embrace truth, wherever they find it.
There is nothing more commonly taken for granted, than that there are certain principles, both speculative and practical Edition: This argument, drawn from universal consent, has this misfortune in it, that if it were true in matter of fact, that there were certain truths, wherein all mankind agreed, it would not prove them innate, if there can be any other way shewn, how men may come to that universal agreement, in the things they do consent in; which I presume may be done. But, which is worse, this argument of universal consent, which is made use of to prove innate principles, seems to me a demonstration that there are none such; because there are none to which all mankind give an universal assent.
These have so settled a reputation of maxims universally received, that it will, no doubt, be thought strange, if any one should seem to question it. But yet I take liberty to say, that these propositions are so far from having an universal assent, that there are a great part of mankind to whom they are not so much as known. For, first, it is evident, that all children and idiots have not the least apprehension or thought of them; and the want of that is enough to destroy that universal assent, which must needs be the necessary concomitant of all innate truths: If therefore children and idiots have souls, have minds, with those impressions upon them, they must unavoidably perceive them, and necessarily know and assent to these truths: For if they are not notions naturally imprinted, how can they be innate?
To say a notion is imprinted on the mind, and yet at the same time to say, that the mind is ignorant of it, and never yet took notice of it, is to make this impression nothing. No proposition can be said to be in the mind, which it never yet knew, which it was never yet conscious of. For if any one may, then, by the same reason, all propositions that are true, and the mind is capable of ever assenting to, may be said to be in the mind, and to be imprinted: Nay, thus truths may be imprinted on the mind, which it never did, nor ever shall know: So that if the capacity of knowing, be the natural impression contended for, all the truths a man ever comes to know, will, by this account, be every one of them innate; and this great point will amount to no more, but only to a very improper way of speaking; which, whilst it pretends to assert the contrary, says nothing different from those, who deny innate principles.
For nobody, I think, ever denied that the mind was capable of knowing several truths. The capacity, they say, is innate, the knowledge acquired. But then to what end such contest for certain innate maxims? If truths can be imprinted on the understanding without being perceived, I can see no difference there can be, between any truths the mind is capable of knowing, in respect of their original: For if these words to be in the understanding have any propriety, they signify to be understood: To avoid this, it is usually answered, That all men know and assent to them, when they come to the use of reason, and this is enough to prove them innate.
Doubtful expressions that have scarce any signification, go for clear reasons, to those, who being prepossessed, take not the pains to examine, even what they themselves say.
For to apply this answer with any tolerable sense to our present purpose, it must signify one of these two things; either, that, as soon as men come to the use of reason, these supposed native inscriptions come to be known, and observed by them: If they mean, that by the use of reason men may discover these principles; and that this is sufficient to prove them innate: But how can these men think the use of reason necessary, to discover principles that are supposed innate, when reason if we may believe them is nothing else but the faculty of deducing unknown truths from principles, or propositions, that are already known?
That certainly can never be thought innate, which we have need of reason to discover; unless, as I have said, we will have all the certain truths, that reason ever teaches us, to be innate. We may as well think the use of reason necessary to make our eyes discover visible objects, as that there should be need of reason, or the exercise thereof, to make the understanding see what is originally engraven on it, and cannot be in the understanding before it be perceived by it.
So that to make reason discover those truths, thus imprinted, is to say, that the use of reason discovers to a man what he knew before: It will here perhaps be said, that mathematical demonstrations, and other truths that are not innate, are not assented to, as soon as proposed, wherein they are distinguished from these maxims, and other innate truths. I shall have occasion to speak of assent, upon the first proposing, more particularly by and by.
I shall here only, and that very readily, allow, that these maxims and mathematical demonstrations are in this different; that the one have need of reason, using of proofs, to make them out, and to gain our assent; but the other, as soon as understood, are, without any the least reasoning, embraced and assented to.
But I withal beg leave to observe, that it lays open the weakness of Edition: For this would be to destroy that bounty of nature they seem so fond of, whilst they make the knowledge of those principles to depend on the labour of our thoughts. For all reasoning is search, and casting about, and requires pains and application.
And how can it with any tolerable sense be supposed, that what was imprinted by nature, as the foundation and guide of our reason, should need the use of reason to discover it? Those who will take the pains to reflect with a little attention on the operations of the understanding, will find, that this ready assent of the mind to some truths, depends not, either on native inscription, or the use of reason; but on a faculty of the mind quite distinct from both of them, as we shall see hereafter.
Reason, therefore, having nothing to do in procuring our assent to these maxims, if by saying, that men know and assent to them, when they come to the use of reason, be meant, that the use of reason assists us in the knowledge of these maxims, it is utterly false; and were it true, would prove them not to be innate. If by knowing and assenting to them, when we come to the use of reason, be meant, that this is the time when they come to be taken notice of by the mind; and that, as soon as children come to the use of reason, they come also to know and assent to these maxims; this also is false and frivolous.
First, It is false: Because it is evident these maxims are not in the mind so early as the use of reason: I grant, men come not to the knowledge of these general and more abstract truths, which are thought innate, till they come to the use of reason; and I add, nor then neither. Which is so, because, till after they come to the use of reason, those general abstract ideas are not framed in the mind, about which those general maxims are, which are mistaken for innate principles; but are indeed discoveries made, and verities introduced and brought into the mind by the same way, and discovered by the same steps, as several other propositions, which nobody was ever so extravagant as to suppose innate.
This I hope to make plain in the sequel of this discourse. But, secondly, were it true, that the precise time of their being known, and assented to, were, when men come the use of reason, neither would that prove them innate.
This way of arguing is as frivolous, as the supposition of itself is false. For by what kind of logic will it appear, Edition: And therefore, the coming to the use of speech, if it were supposed the time that these maxims are first assented to which it may be with as much truth, as the time when men come to the use of reason would be as good a proof that they were innate, as to say, they are innate, because men assent to them, when they come to the use of reason.
I agree then with these men of innate principles, that there is no knowledge of these general and self-evident maxims in the mind, till it comes to the exercise of reason: All that can with any truth be meant by this proposition, that men assent to them when they come to the use of reason, is no more but this, that the making of general abstract ideas, and the understanding of general names, being a concomitant of the rational faculty, and growing up with it, children commonly get not those general ideas, nor learn the names that stand for them, till, having for a good while exercised their reason about familiar and more particular ideas, they are, by their ordinary discourse and actions with others, acknowledged to be capable of rational conversation.
If assenting to these maxims, when men come to the use of reason, can be true in any other sense, I desire it may be shewn; or at least, how in this, or any other sense, it proves them innate. The senses at first let in particular ideas, and furnish the yet empty cabinet; and the mind by degrees growing familiar with some of them, they are lodged in the memory, and names got to them.
Afterwards the mind, proceeding farther, abstracts them, and by degrees learns the use of general names. In this manner the mind comes to be furnished with ideas and language, the Edition: But though the having of general ideas, and the use of general words and reason, usually grow together; yet, I see not, how this any way proves them innate. The knowledge of some truths, I confess, is very early in the mind; but in a way that shows them not to be innate. For, if we will observe, we shall find it still to be about ideas, not innate, but acquired: It being about those first which are imprinted by external things, with which infants have earliest to do, which make the most frequent impressions on their senses.
In ideas thus got, the mind discovers that some agree, and others differ, probably as soon as it has any use of memory; as soon as it is able to retain and perceive distinct ideas. A child knows not that three and four are equal to seven, till he comes to be able to count seven, and has got the name and idea of equality: But neither does he then readily assent, because it is an innate truth, nor was his assent wanting till then, because he wanted the use of reason; but the truth of it appears to him, as soon as he has settled in his mind the clear and distinct ideas, that these names stand for: And therefore it is, that a man knows that eighteen and nineteen are equal to thirty-seven, by the same self-evidence, that he knows one and two to be equal to three: This evasion therefore of general assent, when men come to the use of reason, failing as it does, and leaving no difference between those supposed innate, and other truths, that are afterwards acquired and learnt, men have endeavoured to secure an universal assent to those they call maxims, by saying they are generally assented to as soon as proposed, and the terms they are proposed in, understood: For since men never fail, after they have once understood the words, to acknowledge them for undoubted truths, they would infer, that certainly these propositions were first lodged in the understanding, which, without any teaching, the mind, at the very first proposal, immediately closes with, and assents to, and after that never doubts again.
For, upon the same ground, viz. Nor is this the prerogative of numbers alone, and propositions made about several of them; but even natural philosophy, and all the other sciences, afford propositions, which are sure to meet with assent as soon as they are understood. If these men will be true to their own rule, and have assent at first hearing and understanding the terms, to be a mark of innate, they must allow, not only as many innate propositions as men have distinct ideas; but as many as men can make propositions wherein different ideas are denied one of another.
Since every proposition, wherein one different idea is denied of another, Edition: Universal and ready assent upon hearing and understanding the terms is I grant a mark of self-evidence: For, if that be the certain mark of innate, whatever Edition: And as to the difference of being more general, that makes this maxim more remote from being innate; those general and abstract ideas being more strangers to our first apprehensions, than those of more particular self-evident propositions; and therefore it is longer before they are admitted and assented to by the growing understanding.
And as to the usefulness of these magnified maxims, that perhaps will not be found so great as is generally conceived, when it comes in its due place to be more fully considered. But we have not yet done with assenting to propositions at first hearing and understanding their terms; it is fit we first take notice, that this, instead of being a mark that they are innate, is a proof of the contrary; since it supposes, that several, who understand and know other things, are ignorant of these principles, till they are proposed to them; and that one may be unacquainted with these truths, till he hears them from others.
For if they were innate, what need they be proposed in order to gaining assent, when by being in the understanding, by a natural and original impression, if there were any such they could not but be known before? Or doth the proposing them, print them clearer in the mind than nature did? If so, then the consequence will be, that a man knows them better, after he has been thus taught them, than he did before. Whence it will follow, that these principles may be made more evident to us by others teaching, than nature has made them by impression; which will ill agree with the opinion of innate principles, and give but little authority to them; but, on the contrary, makes them unfit to be the foundations of all our other knowledge, as they are pretended Edition: This cannot be denied, that men grow first acquainted with many of these self-evident truths, upon their being proposed: And if whatever is assented to at first hearing and understanding the terms, must pass for an innate principle, every well-grounded observation, drawn from particulars into a general rule, must be innate.
When yet it is certain, that not all, but only sagacious heads light at first on these observations, and reduce them into general propositions, not innate, but collected from a preceding acquaintance, and reflection on particular instances. These, when observing men have made them, unobserving men, when they are proposed to them, cannot refuse their assent to. And thus all mathematical demonstrations, as well as first principles, must be received as native impressions on the mind: And few mathematicians will be forward to believe, that all the diagrams they have drawn, were but copies of those innate characters which nature had engraven upon their minds.
There is, I fear, this farther weakness in the foregoing argument, which would persuade us, that therefore those maxims are to be thought innate, which men admit at first hearing, because they assent to propositions, which they are not taught, nor do receive from the force of any argument or demonstration, but a bare explication or understanding of the terms. Under which, there seems to me to lie this fallacy, that men are supposed not to be taught, nor to learn any thing de novo; when, in truth, they are taught, and do learn something they were ignorant of before.
For first it is evident, that they have learned the terms, and their signification; neither of which was born with them. But this is not all the acquired knowledge in the case: So that in all propositions that are assented to at first hearing, the terms of the proposition, their standing for such ideas, and the ideas themselves that they stand for, being neither of them innate; I would fain know what there is remaining in such propositions, that is innate.
For I would gladly have any one name that proposition, whose terms or ideas were either of them innate. We by degrees get ideas and names, and learn their appropriated connexion one with another; and then to propositions, made in such terms, whose signification we have learnt, and wherein the agreement or disagreement we can perceive in our ideas, when put together, is expressed, we at first hearing assent; though to other propositions, in themselves as certain and evident, but which are concerning ideas, not so soon or so easily got, we are at the same time no way capable of assenting.
Till that be done, you will in vain endeavour to make any child assent to a proposition made up of such general terms: But if propositions be brought to him in words, which stand for ideas he has not yet in his mind; to such propositions, however evidently true or false in themselves, he affords neither assent nor dissent, but is ignorant. For words being but empty sounds, any farther than they are signs of our ideas, we cannot but assent to them, as they correspond to those ideas we have, but no farther than that. But the showing by what steps and ways knowledge comes into our minds, and the grounds of several degrees of assent, being the business of the following discourse, it may suffice to have only touched on it here, as one reason that made me doubt of those innate principles.
To conclude this argument of universal consent, I agree with these defenders of innate principles, that if they are innate, they must needs have universal assent. For that a truth should be innate, and yet not assented to, is to me as unintelligible, as for a man to know a truth, and be ignorant of it, at the same time. But were the number far less, it would be enough to destroy universal assent, and thereby show these propositions not to be innate, if children alone were ignorant of them.
But that I may not be accused to argue from the thoughts of infants, which are unknown to us, and to conclude from what passes in their understandings before they express it; I say next, that these two general propositions are not the truths that first possess the minds of children, nor are antecedent to all acquired and adventitious notions; which, if they were innate, they must needs be.
Whether we can determine it or no, it matters not, there is certainly a time when children begin to think, and their words and actions do assure us that they do so. When therefore they are capable of thought, of knowledge, of assent, can it rationally be supposed, they can be ignorant of those notions that nature has imprinted, were there any such? Can it be imagined, with any appearance of reason, that they perceive the impressions from things without, and be at the same time ignorant of those characters which nature itself has taken care to stamp within?
Can they receive and assent to adventitious notions, and be ignorant of those which are supposed woven into the very principles of their being, and imprinted there in indelible characters, to be the foundation and guide of all their acquired knowledge, and future reasonings? This would be, to make nature take pains to no purpose; or, at least, to write very ill; since its characters could not be read by those eyes, which saw other things very well; and those are very ill supposed the clearest parts of truth, and the foundations of all our knowledge, which are not first known, and without which the undoubted knowledge of several other things may be had.
The child certainly knows, that the nurse that feeds it, is neither the cat it plays with, nor the blackmoor it is Edition: Or that the child has any notion or apprehension of that proposition at an age, wherein yet, it is plain, it knows a great many other truths? He that will say, children join these general abstract speculations with their sucking bottles and their rattles, may, perhaps, with justice, be thought to have more passion and zeal for his opinion, but less sincerity and truth, than one of that age. Though therefore there be several general propositions, that meet with constant and ready assent, as soon as proposed to men grown up, who have attained the use of more general and abstract ideas, and names standing for them; yet they not being to be found in those of tender years, who nevertheless know other things, they cannot pretend to universal assent of intelligent persons, and so by no means can be supposed innate: Whereby it is evident, if there be any innate truths in the mind, they must necessarily be the first of any thought on; the first that appear there.
That the general maxims, we are discoursing of, are not known to children, idiots, and a great part of mankind, we have already sufficiently proved; whereby it is evident, they have not an universal assent, nor are general impressions. But there is this farther argument in it against their being innate, that these characters, if they were native and original impressions, should appear fairest Edition: It might very well be expected, that these principles should be perfectly known to naturals, which being stamped immediately on the soul as these men suppose can have no dependence on the constitutions or organs of the body, the only confessed difference between them and others.
But alas, amongst children, idiots, savages, and the grossly illiterate, what general maxims are to be found? Their notions are few and narrow, borrowed only from those objects they have had most to do with, and which have made upon their senses the frequentest and strongest impressions. A child knows his nurse and his cradle, and by degrees the play-things of a little more advanced age: But he that from a child untaught, or a wild inhabitant of the woods, will expect these abstract maxims and reputed principles of science, will, I fear, find himself mistaken.
Such kind of general propositions are seldom Edition: They are the language and business of the schools and academies of learned nations, accustomed to that sort of conversation or learning, where disputes are frequent: But of their small use for the improvement of knowledge, I shall have occasion to speak more at large, l. I know not how absurd this may seem to the masters of demonstration: I must therefore beg a little truce with prejudice, and the forbearance of censure, till I have been heard out in the sequel of this discourse, being very willing to submit to better judgments.
And since I impartially search after truth, I shall not be sorry to be convinced that I have been too fond of my own notions; which I confess we are all apt to be, when application and study have warmed our heads with them. Upon the whole matter, I cannot see any ground to think these two speculative maxims innate, since they are not universally assented to; and the assent they so generally find, is no other than what several propositions, not allowed to be innate, equally partake in with them; and since the assent that is given them, is produced another way, and comes not from natural inscription, as I doubt not but to make appear in the following discourse.
And if these first principles of knowledge and science are found not to be innate, no other speculative maxims can I suppose with better right pretend to be so. If those speculative maxims, whereof we discoursed in the foregoing chapter, have not an actual universal assent from all mankind, as we there proved, it is much more visible concerning practical principles, that they come short of an universal reception: Not that it brings their truth at all in question: Those speculative maxims carry their own evidence with them; but moral principles require reasoning and discourse, and some exercise of the mind, to discover the certainty of their truth.
They lie not open as natural characters engraven on the mind; which, if any such were, they must needs be visible by themselves, and by their own light be certain and known to every body. It may suffice, that these moral rules are capable of demonstration; and therefore it is our own fault, if we come not to a certain knowledge of them.
But the ignorance wherein many men are of them, and the slowness of assent wherewith others receive them, are manifest proofs that they are Edition: Whether there be any such moral principles, wherein all men do agree, I appeal to any, who have been but moderately conversant in the history of mankind, and looked abroad beyond the smoke of their own chimneys. Where is that practical truth, that is universally received without doubt or question, as it must be, if innate?
Justice, and keeping of contracts, is that which most men seem to agree in. This is a principle, which is thought to extend itself to the dens of thieves, and the confederacies of the greatest villains; and they who have gone farthest towards the putting off of humanity itself, keep faith and rules of justice one with another. I grant that out-laws themselves do this one amongst another; but it is without receiving these as the innate laws of nature.
They practise them as rules of convenience within their own communities: Justice and truth are the common ties of society; and therefore, even out-laws and robbers, who break with all the world besides, must keep faith and rules of equity amongst themselves, or else they cannot hold together. But will any one say, that those that live by fraud or rapine, have innate principles of truth and justice which they allow and assent to? Perhaps it will be urged, that the tacit assent of their minds agrees to what their practice contradicts.
I answer, first, I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts. Secondly, it is very strange and unreasonable to suppose innate practical principles, that terminate only in contemplation. Practical principles derived from nature are there for operation, and must produce conformity of action, not barely speculative assent to their truth, or else they are in vain distinguished from speculative maxims. Nature, I confess, has put into man a desire of happiness, and an aversion to misery: I deny not, that there are natural tendencies imprinted on the minds of men; and that, from the very first instances of sense and perception, there are some things that are grateful, and others unwelcome to them; some things, that they incline to, and others that they fly: Such natural impressions on the understanding are so far from being confirmed hereby, that this is an argument against them; since, if there were certain characters imprinted by nature on the understanding, as the principles of knowledge, we could not but perceive them constantly operate in us and influence our knowledge, as we do those others on the will and appetite; which never cease to be the constant springs and motives of all our actions, to which we perpetually feel them strongly impelling us.
Another reason that makes me doubt of any innate practical principles, is, that I think there cannot any one moral rule be proposed, whereof a man may not justly demand a reason: He would be thought void of common sense, who asked on the one Edition: It carries its own light and evidence with it, and needs no other proof: So that the truth of all these moral rules plainly depends upon some other antecedent to them, and from which they must be deduced; which could not be, if either they were innate, or so much as self-evident.
That men should keep their compacts, is certainly a great and undeniable rule in morality. But yet, if a Christian, who has the view of happiness and misery in another life, be asked why a man must keep his word, he will give this as a reason; because God, who has the power of eternal life and death, requires it of us. But if an Hobbist be asked why, he will answer, because the public requires it, and the Leviathan will punish you, if you do not. And if one of the old philosophers had been asked, he would have answered, because it was dishonest, below the dignity of a man, and opposite to virtue, the highest perfection of human nature, to do otherwise.
Hence naturally flows the great variety of opinions concerning moral rules, which are to be found among men, according to the different sorts of happiness they have a prospect of, or propose to themselves: I grant the existence of God is so many ways manifest, and the obedience we owe him so congruous to the light of reason, that a great part of mankind give testimony to the law of nature; but yet I think it must be allowed, that several moral rules may receive from mankind a very general approbation, without either knowing or admitting the true ground of morality; which can only be the will and law of a God, who sees men in the dark, has in his hand rewards and punishments, and power enough to call to account the proudest offender.
For God having, by an inseparable connexion, joined virtue and public happiness together, and made the practice thereof necessary to the preservation of society, and visibly beneficial to all with whom the virtuous man has to do; it is no wonder, that every one should not only allow, but recommend and magnify those rules to others, from whose observance of them he is sure to reap advantage to himself. He may, out of interest, as well as conviction, cry up that for sacred, which if once trampled on and profaned, he himself cannot be safe nor secure.
This, though it takes nothing from the moral and eternal obligation which these rules evidently have; yet it shows that the outward acknowledgment men pay to them in their words, proves not that they are innate principles; nay, it proves not so much, as that men assent to them inwardly in their own minds, as the inviolable rules of their own practice: For, if we will not in civility allow too much sincerity to the professions of most men, but think their actions to be the interpreters of their thoughts, we shall find that they have no such internal veneration Edition: But the breach of this rule cannot be a greater vice, than to teach others, that it is no moral rule, nor obligatory, would be thought madness, and contrary to that interest men sacrifice to, when they break it themselves.
Perhaps conscience will be urged as checking us for such breaches, and so the internal obligation and establishment of the rule be preserved. To which I answer, that I doubt not but, without being written on their hearts, many men may, by the same way that they come to the knowledge of other things, come to assent to several moral rules, and be convinced of their obligation.
Others also may come to be of the same mind, from their education, company, and customs of their country; which persuasion, however got, will serve to set conscience on work, which is nothing else, but our own opinion or judgment of the moral rectitude or pravity of our own actions. And if conscience be a proof of innate principles, contraries may be innate principles; since some men, with the same bent of conscience, prosecute what others avoid.
But I cannot see how any men should ever transgress those moral rules, with confidence and serenity, were they innate, and stamped upon their minds. View but an army at the sacking of a town, and see what observation, or sense of moral principles, or what touch of conscience for all the outrages they do. Robberies, murders, rapes, are the sports of men set at liberty from punishment and censure.
Have there not been whole nations, and those of the most civilized people, amongst whom the exposing their children, and leaving them in the fields to perish by want or wild beasts, has been the practice, as little condemned or scrupled as the begetting them? Do they not still, in some countries, put them into the same graves with their mothers, if they die in child-birth; or dispatch them, if a pretended Edition: And are there not places where, at a certain age, they kill or expose their parents without any remorse at all?
In a part of Asia, the sick, when their case comes to be thought desperate, are carried out and laid on the earth, before they are dead; and left there, exposed to wind and weather, to perish without assistance or pity a. It is familiar among the Mingrelians, a people professing Christianity, to bury their children alive without scruple b.
There are places where they eat their own children c. The Caribbees were wont to geld their children, on purpose to fat and eat them d. And Garcilasso de la Vega tells us of a people in Peru, which were wont to fat and eat the children they got on their female captives, whom they kept as concubines for that purpose; and when they were past breeding, the mothers themselves were killed too and eaten e. The virtues, whereby the Tououpinambos believed they merited paradise, were revenge, and eating abundance of their enemies. For other uses, see Volume disambiguation.
Archived from the original on Retrieved from " https: Library and information science stubs Book terminology Books by type Bibliography. Views Read Edit View history. This page was last edited on 19 June , at Aug 13, Wing Kee rated it really liked it. Poor ending but hits all the emotions right. The art is deceptive, it starts off absolutely gorgeous cause it's Manapul and slowly but surely as he focuses on writing and other artists comes in loses the wonderful splash pages and beautiful emotions and colors.
The world building is good. This is a first arc and though we all know these characters' origins and it is a rehash, I felt the pieces of the world we visited and the characters meeting their younger selves and the emotions of the w Poor ending but hits all the emotions right. This is a first arc and though we all know these characters' origins and it is a rehash, I felt the pieces of the world we visited and the characters meeting their younger selves and the emotions of the world involved made for an interesting world.
I also love the continuation of stories like Ivy's and the villains from the New This story is about family, it's about love and walls and I liked it. This is not a big huge battle for the first arc it's an small internal look at the core of these characters that gets readers new and old reoriented with these tweaked Rebirth versions of the Trinity.
I like that Lois was the narrator of the story giving a light and human touch to these Gods among men characters. Ivy as a catalyst gave the heart and core for the story and also a point to the story, the child is how the Trinity in their core and their hope can inspire and change people for the better which is what DC has always been about before the doom and gloom, inspire.
I liked it, is it a rehash? Does the book lose steam towards the tail end? However, it was so emotionally resonant for not only as a manifesto for Rebirth, but also for a clear look at how this Trinity bonded and became family, I like it. There is a lot of retread on themes but it's more of a retweak for Rebirth and I was okay with it. This is a first arc and it did allow for readers to see these classic characters in the context of Rebirth and what we are to expect from each of them at their core, and also in the context of a Trinity.
Clark's moments was beautiful and quiet. Bruce's moments were powerful and tragic. Diana's moments were loving and hopeful. These character moments were way more important than any large huge explosion and fight that could have started this series. Plus the villains were done well and the child trying to avoid spoilers is there to feel the culmination of what this new Rebirth retweaked Trinity and DC's new direction is all about.
I liked it, it did lose a lot of steam in the art, and a little bit in the story but it hit the emotions and I had the feels. Onward to the next book! In an act of friendship and as a chance to get to know the new Superman, Lois Lane invites Diana Prince and Bruce Wayne to the farm house for dinner. It goes fine aside from little Jon accidentally burning a hole through the door and almost burns a hole through Bruce and Diana. But after dinner something funny happens. They get tangled up in a suspicious vine that transports them into their dreams where they must relive pivotal life changing events from their lives.
Poison Ivy orchestrated it but the real menace behind it all is not who they think. Now Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman need to trust each other enough to get out alive all the while Lois and Jon are in the real world dealing with Poison Ivy. Francis Manapul did the art for the part 1, 2, and 5. They all did a fantastic job.
I had no idea what happened before this with Superman and was a little lost but that is what Google is for I looked it up and found a great spoiler from back in March, What the Hell did Superman just do to the DC Comics that explained it to me. With this new information so much more makes sense! The story in this was very engaging I couldn't put it down, that's why I wait for the volumes to come out.
Each of the characters had to face something from their past that helped shape who they are and face other issues that came from the guilt of their past. Clark gets to talk to his father again, Diana meets a younger version of herself and Bruce has to relive his parents death and the trauma afterwards. But in each situation the character takes away an important lesson from it. Unfortunately they weren't the only ones learning the vulnerabilities of the trio. It was a great story and showed so much character development. As one of the most prominent artists for DC in the last ten years, Francis Manapul reunites the holy trinity in a world that is different yet familiar with the characters and their readers.
Please click here for my full review. Sep 28, Scott rated it liked it. That probably sounds way more harsh than intended, because it was great to see this trio friends and teammates who know and understand each other in action.
So what if the story was average? The artwork was vibrant, I liked Lois Lane's narration, and the ending leaves a door wide open for continuing and future adventures. Jan 12, Jesse A rated it liked it Shelves: Not bad but not particularly strong either. Story was a bit of a rehash of a rehashed rehash. May 29, Charles rated it liked it Shelves: Considering this is another kick at the can thanks to a reboot soft or otherwise I was a bit hesitant at first.
In the end, this was actually pretty fun and for me at least, the elements from the past felt more like nods of the hat than say a call back that served no purpose. Long story short, this is the current iteration of how the Trinity Wonder Woman, Superman, and Batman meetup and come to an agree Considering this is another kick at the can thanks to a reboot soft or otherwise I was a bit hesitant at first.
Long story short, this is the current iteration of how the Trinity Wonder Woman, Superman, and Batman meetup and come to an agreement to work together. Thanks to the somewhat confusing backstory of the current Superman current while this story was first printed he and his family are a bit hesitant, but Lois steps up to the plate and invites Diana and Bruce over for a dinner.
An incredibly benign event to try and get these folks talking and hopefully respect each other. Soon though, things go south on the farm and the Trinity is in some peculiar trouble. Might be seen as a bit of a spoiler, but still leaves much to be discovered in the story. It was more heartfelt and emotional to read for me. I really enjoyed it and the way he chose to portray the Trinity in particular a good old squared-jawed Superman! This was pretty fun, with some good sappy moments in it for someone like me, lovely art, and a story that was fluffy, but engaging enough to keep me going.
Francis Manapul reunites the three DC icons in a plot that uses one issue per character to underline their frailties and strenghs before confronting the menace that'll bind them again. The story starts reasonably well. I was honestly surprised to see that Manapul could write pretty decently.
The off monologues sound good if sometimes a bit mushy and the plot is well paced. Too bad the underwhelming final issue half ruined it and left all the mushy aspects floating on the surface.
Yet it seems Man Francis Manapul reunites the three DC icons in a plot that uses one issue per character to underline their frailties and strenghs before confronting the menace that'll bind them again. Yet it seems Manapul has some real understanding of the characters and he treats them with respect.
This effort deserves some recognition but I hope the future stories will be meatier. Artwise the 3 issues drawn by Manapul 1,2,5 are very good, enhanced by his beautiful colors. Clay Mann does one 3 , a decent job with comendable colors by Brad Anderson. Emanuela Lupacchino does two 4,6. Shows the importance of a good inker, particularly if like Lupacchino you pencil decently but without any notable style. Colors are by some studio that sadly don't bother to use Manapul's chart. In short, if you're into the beefcake, the bat and the brunette, go for it.
It won't blow your mind out but it won't hurt your feelings either. Aug 12, Kate rated it really liked it Shelves: Loved this 'big three' centred story which serves as a nice connective between the individual character's own issues. While the arc may be a little 'Oprah', it's a good opportunity to let the Loved this 'big three' centred story which serves as a nice connective between the individual character's own issues.
While the arc may be a little 'Oprah', it's a good opportunity to let the personalities of the characters shine rather than just focusing on 'monster of the week' as in the Justice League runs. That is until the last few issues where it all turns into a overly contrived that's easily forgettable.
Art is great, but this review copy suffered due to the double page layouts being impossible to read on a tablet. As comics move more and more towards the digital age, editors really need to get creatives focusing on single page spreads. I'm a huge fan of both mediums and can see the worthiness of both, but this is something that needs sorting. The double-page spreads in this issue were wasted, and it's a damn shame. Oct 01, Maggie Gordon rated it it was ok Shelves: Meh, nice art, but it's another boring, introduction to the characters and their background motivations.
It adds little to the DC universe and reads like a million other comics that came before it. Aug 24, Koen rated it did not like it. Well, this wasn't satisfying.. Flimsy characters, uninteresting storyline, lame jokes, and so on Strange that I even managed to finish this one. Would have expected more from The Trinity In my eyes, this can be skipped altogether But of course these are just my two cents. Aug 24, Tiago rated it liked it Shelves: Manapul's art is the real selling point on this one, every panel is gorgeous, the story not so much in my opinion, felt like Scrooge with superheroes to me.
Jun 13, Rick Hunter rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: Where, oh where to start with this this one? Since the art is fantastic in this book, I guess I'll start there. Mann's lone issue is 3. Each is an amazing artist. Emanuela Lupacchino has a bit of a different style than the other 2. Her art is closer in style to Jim Lee with its need for heavier inks. The 2 guys have a more fine line style like Mikel Janin. This seems to be an ever more popular style in today's comics. I've had a really hard sitting here debating whose art I like the best.
I guess I would have to go with Emanuela over the others. Her female characters look great, of course, they all have beautiful females, but she also has the best Batman in the book. Clay Mann has a couple of really great panels of Wonder Woman.