SECTION I.
The Platonic doctrine of Ideas has been, in all ages, the derision of the vulgar, and the admiration of the wise. Indeed, if we consider that ideas are the most sublime objects of speculation, and that their nature is no less bright in itself, than difficult to investigate, this opposition in the conduct of mankind will be natural and necessary; for, from our connection with a material nature, our intellectual eye, previous to the irradiations of science, is as ill adapted to objects the most splendid of all, “as the eyes of bats to the light of day[5].” And yet (as I presume, it will appear from the following discourse), unless the existence of these lucid beings is admitted, there can be no such thing as science; nor, indeed, any genuine knowledge at all. Hence, an enquiry concerning their nature and reality, is highly proper, as an introduction to the ensuing Commentaries, in which they are considered as the stable pillars of all truth, and the prolific principles of the universe.
But previous to this enquiry, it is proper to observe, that Plato was not the inventor, though he was a strenuous asserter, of ideas; for, in the Sophista he affirms, that ideas were the discovery of men who excelled in wisdom and piety, and who contended for an invisible essence. Diogenes Laërtius, indeed, asserts, that Plato received the doctrine of ideas from Epicharmus. But Epicharmus was not their inventor, because Pythagoras, and others of still higher antiquity, were well acquainted with ideas; so that it may be affirmed, with much greater truth, that Plato was instructed in their nature by Philolaus his preceptor, and the disciple of Pythagoras. For Pythagoras, after his mysterious manner, signified ideas by numbers. But, prior to Pythagoras, Orpheus was an asserter of ideas, and called Jupiter, or the dimiurgus of the world, “the idea of all things.” And, according to Syrianus, the mundane sphere, celebrated by Empedocles, is no other than the ideal world; so that the doctrine of ideas is as ancient as that of wisdom itself.
But to begin with our enquiry: in the first place, without universals there can be no science; for the flowing and perishing nature of particulars is perfectly foreign from that stability and duration which is requisite to objects of invariable truth. Neither is it possible, that infinite individuals can exist without the subsistence of one cause endued with infinite power; for all multitude must necessarily originate from one, and must resemble its cause in as great a degree of perfection as its nature can admit; by a diffused infinity, shadowing forth that infinite power which subsists in indivisible union. Hence, if this be the case, and if infinite men, horses, and a multitude of other univocals, are produced in an infinite time, an unity of infinite power must be the source of each, according to which they are generated in a terminated manner to infinity in the universe. Again, all animals are transmuted from that which is in capacity (i. e. seed), into energy. But if this be true, it is requisite there should be some animal in the universe, subsisting in ever-vital energy, which may call forth that which is concealed in dormant capacity, into perfect actuality. Thirdly, the celestial orbs would not perpetually revolve in the same spaces, and after the same manner, unless one and the same universal number, or idea, ruled in each. So, likewise, there is a natural number in every animal; or those of the same species, would not always (when perfect) be distinguished with the same invariable organs; nor would they be subject to puberty and old age, at the same time, unless they were detained by the same measure of nature. Besides, the participation of universals, is evident in every sensible object. Thus, the rational nature is united with every individual man. Thus, animal subsists in a lion and a horse, in a man and a dog. And thus the pentad, or number five, is participated in the five fingers, and the duad in the nostrils, eyes, hands, and feet. But since these do not subsist without a cause, but are perfected by certain determinate natures, it is necessary there should be an universal animal, in the whole of nature, separate from sensibles, by means of which this sensible animal is generated. And that there should subsist in nature a pentad, through which the hands are always adorned with that number of extremities; and a duad, from which the two eyes and nostrils are derived. But if nature does not possess these numbers from herself, as she is not the first cause of all, but derives them from another cause, in the same manner as matter from nature, it is necessary there should be universals and numbers prior to nature, subsisting in far greater purity and perfection.
Again, we may demonstrate the existence of ideas as follows: if the Deity, in fabricating the universe, operated essentially (and there is no other way in which we can conceive him to operate), he must fabricate the universe, an image of Himself. But, if this be the case, he contains in himself, in the manner of an exemplar, the causes of the universe; and these causes are no other than ideas. Besides, this consideration is not to be omitted, that the perfect must necessarily antecede and preside over the imperfect; unity over multitude; the impartible over the partible; and that which is perpetually the same, over that which admits of variation and change. From whence it may be inferred, that things do not originate from baser natures, but that their gradual processions end in these; and that they begin from the most perfect, best, and most beautiful natures. But let us pursue this reasoning more minutely, as it affords the strongest arguments for the existence of ideas.
When the Deity fabricated the various species of animals, and bestowed on them the different senses, it was doubtless with a view to the benefit of their possessors, as he foresaw, that without these, the animal could neither provide for its own support, nor defend itself from surrounding dangers. But may we not enquire from whence this previous perception originated? For it is not to be supposed, that he first made animals destitute of senses, and so, being admonished by their sudden destruction, afterwards assigned them to their nature. Shall we say, this foreknowledge was the result of a reasoning process? But then, we again ask, What were the principles of this ratiocination? For if they originated from other reasonings, it is necessary, at length, to arrive at something prior to these discursive operations, on which they ultimately depend; since all reasoning must be founded on indemonstrable principles. Was sense, then, or intellect the principle of this previous perception? But, sense, in the present instance, had not then a being, for it could not exist prior to the animal nature: it was, therefore, intellect. But if intellect be the repository of certain propositions, and the conclusion be science, it must follow, that there could not then be a consultation of any thing sensible. For the principle and the conclusion must both depend on something intelligible. Besides, may we not ask, how such a habit of thought arose before the existence of a sensible nature! It is absurd in the extreme, to say from chance, and to resolve it into a sudden volition of the Deity, is an assertion that may, indeed, satisfy vulgar minds, but can by no means quiet the restless spirit of philosophical investigation. Since, to suppose the cause of the universe, actuated by sudden volitions, is to place him on a level with the vilest natures, and subject him to the irrational impulses of the brute. Hence we infer that the formation of animals, and by the same arguments of the world, was not the result of any reasoning process. For, indeed, argument and foreknowledge cannot with propriety be attributed to the Deity; but when they are ascribed to him, we must consider it as nothing more than an indication of his constituting particulars, in a manner somewhat similar to the providence of a wise man, in inferior concerns. For, in subordinate natures, whose operations cannot take effect prior to enquiry, reason is necessary, on account of the inferiority of that power which precedes the reasoning energy. In like manner, foreknowledge is necessary, because a power is wanting to its possessor, which might render him superior to its use. For foreknowledge is directed to this end, that one particular circumstance may take place in preference to another. But if it be requisite that every energy in the Deity should be void of defect, and if it is not lawful that any thing should be present with him, which is not total and universal, it is necessary that all things should be contained in every thing essential to the nature of the Deity. Hence, since even futurity is with him present, there is nothing in him posterior; but what is present in him becomes posterior, by its participation in another. If then futurity be present with the Deity, it is necessary it should be so present, as if foreknown in a posterior nature; that is, in such a manner that nothing may be wanting to any being; and that is, lastly, so that every thing may be complete.
Besides, reasoning cannot, by any means, belong to an eternal essence like the deity; for if this be admitted, he must be forgetful of his former operations. And if, in consequence of reasoning, he produces more perfect natures afterwards, his works could not be perfectly beautiful before: but if they were beautiful before, they must be co-existent with their cause, i.e. they must be eternally beautiful, antecedent to the reasoning energy. Again, if we suppose the supreme intellect, the demiurgus of the world, to operate by enquiry, his energy could not be spontaneous, and truly his own; but his essence would be similar to that of the artificer, who does not derive his productions from himself, but procures them as something adventitious by learning and enquiry. But if the universe was not formed by deliberation, it must be co-existent with its cause, and reside in his essence; for if it be not co-existent there must have been some particular time, in which its artificer determined on its production; and this determination must have been the result of a reasoning process, concluding that it would not be good to produce it before that particular time, (from whence, by the way, we infer the eternity of the world.) And if the universe be co-existent with its author, it must perpetually emanate from his nature, and be dependent on it, like the shadow on its forming substance. But in this case, its archetype must be contained in the essence of its author; for every cause is that primarily, which its effect is secondarily. And hence we infer, that if the sensible universe be replete with forms of every kind, the exemplars of those forms, must subsist in immaterial perfection, in the artificer of the world.
If this sensible world, then, be formed according to the exemplar of that which is intelligible; may we not say, with the great Plotinus, that it is requisite universal animal should there primarily subsist in perfect vital energy, containing all things in its omniform essence. “Hence (says he[6]) the heavens are there a divine animal, replete with ideal stars. Earth too does not there subsist solitary, but is much more vital than this corporeal earth, for it is full of intellectual life. The sea too is there, and all water subsisting in life, and an ever-abiding stream. For how is it possible that any thing not vital, can be the progeny of life itself? He, therefore, who enquires from whence animals originate in the intelligible world, might as well enquire from whence all life, and soul, and universal intellect, arose. For here there is nothing indigent nor defective, but every thing is perfect and exuberant. Here they all flow from one fountain, not as from a certain spirit, or heat, but as if from an universal quality, possessing and preserving in itself, all qualities; such as sweetness, accompanied with fragrance of smell, the vigour of wine, and the strength of all juices, bright colours, and whatever is perceived by the taste.”
3. Such then are the arguments which the Platonic philosophy affords in defence of ideas; the existence of which was so evident to Plato, that, in the Sophista, he compares those who oppose the friends of ideas to the giants of old, warring, as it were, on celestial souls, and such as are engaged in sublime investigations. Let us now consider to what universals these lucid beings are confined; since, according to the Pythagoreans and Platonists, there are not ideas of all universal conceptions. “For, in the first place (says Syrianus[7]), there are no ideas of things evil and base, because these subsist in nature rather by a privation and absence of ideas. And, on this account, they are said to exist contrary to nature. Nor, secondly, of negations, for these are destructive of the bound and limitation which is attributed to every thing from the unifying and comprehending nature of ideas; and hence, separation is rather the result of material infinity than of that which is formal or ideal. Nor again, are there any ideas of things which at different times receive a variety of conditions. For these participate of transmutation from a moveable cause, but not from the immoveable and stable illustration of ideas. Nor again of parts, such as the hand, head, fingers, and the like. For the causes of things existing entire, produce whole species and forms; not divided about the parts of these, like the reasons of nature. But neither did these wise men place in intellect the determinate causes of accidents in bodies, such as sweetness and whiteness. For they considered that natural reasons were sufficient for the production of accidents. Nor again, of composites, as of a wise man. For since ideas are simple, they preside over the simple essence of every thing. But the composition and division of things is the business of our intellect; ideas, at the same time, and that intellection which is co-ordinate to ideas, being exempt from all these, on account of superlative simplicity. Neither, therefore, must we establish ideas of things generated from dissimilars, such as mules; nor of fruit produced by engrafting from different trees. For all these have a posterior and adventitious generation, and are not the work of nature alone, nor of nature proceeding according to her own reasons, but, as it were, compelled to labour contrary to her own determinations. Hence it is manifest, that all art, which imitates nature, and alone ministers to the use of mortal life, is separated from the cause of ideas. But neither are the works which, depending on the purpose of the soul, are perfected by a concourse of many causes, and which we are accustomed to call the operations of fortune, to be conjoined to the cause of ideas. For things which are there perfected, are eternal, and subsist perpetually the same, free from the nature of contingent events. It remains, therefore, that ideas must be confined to universal and perfect essences, and to whatever confers to their natural disposition; as for instance, to man, and every thing perfective of man, such as wisdom and virtue. For ideas existing as the generative and energetic causes of the perfection of every thing, distribute being to essences, and convert them to the inexhaustible plenitude of their own omniform natures.”
4. But let us now consider the nature of numbers; for as every form is a number, according to the Pythagoreans[8], a speculation of this kind must afford no small light to the arduous investigation of ideas. Will it not, therefore, be proper, in the first place, to enquire, with the great Plotinus[9], whether multitude is not a departure and distance from one, so that infinity itself is a separation from unity in the extreme, because it is no other than innumerable multitude; that on this account it becomes evil; and that we contract a similar nature when departing from intellectual unity, we are divided by sensible multitude? For a being then properly becomes many, when no longer able to remain collected in itself, the same, it is diffused abroad, and thus, being dispersed, is variously extended; so that when, by diffusion, it is absolutely deprived of unity, it becomes perfect multitude, destitute of that universal cement, which unites one part with another. But whenever the conciliating one is present, then that which was scattered and diffused, becoming permanent by its bounding power, passes into magnitude. But if any one should deny the subsistence of unity, asserting that one is no where to be found, which is not some particular one; and should hence affirm, that what is called one abstractedly, is only a certain affection of the soul towards any being; we ask, what prohibits the appellation of essence, from being nothing more than an affection of the soul, and consequently the existence of being, a delusion? For we predicate unity of particulars with as great propriety as being. I am well aware, that philosophers of the present day will answer, that we have an evident proof of the reality of being, from its agitating the soul, and becoming apparent in the phantasy: to which we reply, that in like manner, the soul is agitated, and the imagination influenced about the one. For every individual as much excites the perception of one, as of being.