er foundation than an assumption, it is not likely to bear much
strain; and, if it has a better foundation, the assumption rather
weakens than strengthens it.

As has been already said, Hume is not content with denying that we know
anything about the existence or the nature of the soul; but he carries
the war into the enemy's camp, and accuses those who affirm the
immateriality, simplicity, and indivisibility of the thinking substance,
of atheism and Spinozism, which are assumed to be convertible terms.

The method of attack is ingenious. Observation appears to acquaint us
with two different systems of beings, and both Spinoza and orthodox
philosophers agree, that the necessary substratum of each of these is a
substance, in which the phenomena adhere, or of which they are
attributes or modes.

"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 of nature. Here Spinoza
appears, and tells me that these are only modifications and that
the subject in which they inhere is simple, uncompounded, and
indivisible. After this I consider the other system of beings, viz.
the universe of thought, or my impressions and ideas. Then 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, everything I can discover or conceive in the
first system. Upon my inquiring 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 'tis impossible to discover any absurdity
in one, which is not common to both of them."--(I. p. 309.)

For the manner in which Hume makes his case good, I must refer to the
original. Plain people may rest satisfied that both hypotheses are
unintelligible, without plunging any further amo