t in that particular. But when we first form our reasoning
concerning the object, it is beyond doubt, that the same reasoning must
extend to the impression: And that because the quality of the object,
upon which the argument is founded, must at least be conceived by
the mind; and coued not be conceived, unless it were common to an
impression; since we have no idea but what is derived from that origin.
Thus we may establish it as a certain maxim, that we can never, by any
principle, but by an irregular kind [Such as that of Sect. 2, form the
coherence of our perceptions.] of reasoning from experience, discover
a connexion or repugnance betwixt objects, which extends not to
impressions; though the inverse proposition may not be equally true,
that all the discoverable relations of impressions are common to
objects.

To apply this to the present case; there are two different systems
of being presented, to which I suppose myself under necessity of
assigning some substance, or ground of inhesion. I observe first the
universe of objects or of body: The sun, moon and stars; the earth,
seas, plants, animals, men, ships, houses, and other productions either
of art or nature. Here Spinoza appears, and tells me, that these are
only modifications; and that the subject, in which they inhere, is
simple, incompounded, and indivisible. After this I consider the other
system of beings, viz. the universe of thought, or my impressions and
ideas. There I observe another sun, moon and stars; an earth, and seas,
covered and inhabited by plants and animals; towns, houses, mountains,
rivers; and in short every thing I can discover or conceive in the
first system. Upon my enquiring concerning these, Theologians present
themselves, and tell me, that these also are modifications, and
modifications of one simple, uncompounded, and indivisible substance.
Immediately upon which I am deafened with the noise of a hundred voices,
that treat the first hypothesis with detestation and scorn, and the
second with applause and veneration. I turn my attention to these
hypotheses to see what may be the reason of so great a partiality; and
find that they have the same fault of being unintelligible, and that
as far as we can understand them, they are so much alike, that it is
impossible to discover any absurdity in one, which is not common to both
of them. We have no idea of any quality in an object, which does not
agree to, and may not represent a quality in an