Part I, Chapter 15: Of Ideas which the Mind adds to those which are expressly signified by Words
WE may also comprehend, under the name of accessory ideas, another kind of ideas, which the mind adds to the exact signification of the terms for a special reason, which is, that it often happens when, having conceived that exact signification which answers to the word, it does not rest there when this is too general and confused, but extends its view further, taking occasion to consider, beyond the object which is presented to it, other attributes and phases, and thus of conceiving it by ideas which are more distinct. This happens specially in the case of the demonstrative pronouns, when, instead of the proper name, we employ the neuter, hoc, this; for it is clear that this signifies this thing, and that hoc signifies hcec res, hoc negotium. Now, the word thing, res, denotes an attribute very general and confused, of every object, there being only nothing to which it may not be applied. But as the demonstrative pronoun hoc does not simply denote the thing in itself, but also causes it to be conceived as present, the mind does not confine itself to that single attribute thing, but commonly gives that to certain other distinct attributes. Thus when we employ the word that, pointing to a diamond, the mind is not satisfied with conceiving it as a thing present, but adds thereto the ideas of a hard and shining body of such a form.
All these ideas, those which the mind adds, as well as the first and principal one, are excited by the word hoc, applied to a diamond; but they are not excited by it in the same manner, for the idea of the attribute, thing present, is excited, as the proper signification of the word, and the others are excited as ideas which the mind conceives as connected with that first and principal idea, but which are not expressly denoted by the pronoun hoc. Hence the additions are different, according as we apply the hoc, in relation to different things.
If I say hoc in pointing out a diamond, the term will always signify this thing; but the mind will supply and add thereto other more distinct ideas.
These added ideas must, therefore, be clearly distinguished from the ideas expressed, for though they are both found in the same mind, they are not found there in the same manner; and the mind which adds these other ideas more distinct, still conceives that the term hoc expresses in itself only a confused idea, which, though joined to ideas more distinct, remains always confused.
Hence we are enabled to silence an intrusive wrangling, which the ministers have rendered celebrated, and in which they found their main argument for proving their figurative sense in the Eucharist; and the employment of this remark here for the purpose of clearing up this argument, ought not to be considered strange, since it is more fitted for logic than theology. They pretend that in the proposition of Jesus Christ, this is my body, the word this signifies bread; now, say they, the bread cannot really be the body of Jesus Christ, therefore the proposition of Jesus Christ does not mean this is really my body.
It is not necessary to examine here the minor, and prove its falsehood,—this has been done elsewhere;—we only here inquire into the major, where they maintain that the word this signifies bread. In relation to this, we have only to tell them, according to the principles we have established, that the word bread, denoting a distinct idea, is not expressly that which answers to the term hoc, which denotes only a confused idea of a thing present; but that it is very true that when Jesus Christ pronounced this word, and directed the attention of his apostles at the same time to the bread which he held in his hands, they probably added to the confused idea of thing present, expressed by the term hoc, the distinct idea of bread, which is excited truly, and not expressly signified by that term. It is simply want of attention to this necessary distinction between the ideas excited and the ideas expressly signified, that has occasioned all the perplexity of these ministers. They make a thousand useless efforts to prove that the apostles, when Jesus Christ showed them the bread, and directed their attention to it by the term hoc, could not have conceived anything but bread. We grant that they probably did conceive bread, and that they had ground for so conceiving. It does not require much to show this. The question is not whether they conceived bread, but how they conceived it, and on this point we may say that if they conceived, that is to say, if they had in their minds a distinct idea of bread, they did not have it as signified by the word hoc, for this is impossible, since this term never signifies anything but a confused idea, but they had it as an idea added to that confused idea, and excited by the circumstances. The importance of this remark will be seen in what follows. But it is well to add here, that this distinction is so indubitable, that even when they undertake to prove that the term this signifies bread, they do nothing else but establish it. This word, says a minister who spoke last on the subject, not only signifies this thing present, but this thing present which you know to be bread. Who does not see that the terms you know to be bread are clearly added to the words, thing present, by an incidental proposition, but are not signified expressly by the words thing present. The subject of a proposition does not signify an entire proposition, consequently, in this proposition, which has the same sense, this which you know to be bread, the word bread is clearly added to the word this, and not expressed by it.
But what matter is it, say the ministers, that the word signifies expressly bread, provided it be true that the apostles conceived that what Jesus Christ called this was bread?
The importance of this point is, that the term this, signifying in itself only the precise idea of things present, although determined to signify bread by the distinct ideas which the apostles added to it, remains always capable of another determination, and of being connected with other ideas, without the mind’s perceiving this change of object. And thus, when Jesus Christ affirmed of this, that it was his body, the apostles had only to cut off the ideas which they had made by the distinct idea of bread, and detaining the same idea of thing present, they would conceive after the proposition of Jesus Christ was finished, that this thing present was now the body of Jesus Christ. Thus they would connect the word hoc, this, which they had joined to bread, by an incidental proposition, with the attribute body of Jesus Christ. The attribute body of Jesus Christ would oblige them indeed to remove the added ideas, but it would not make any change in the idea precisely denoted by the word hoc, and they would conceive simply that it was the body of Jesus Christ. Here is seen all the mystery of this proposition, which arose not from the obscurity of the terms, but from the change effected by Jesus Christ, who caused this subject, hoc, to have two different terminations, at the commencement, and at the end of the proposition, as we shall explain in the Second Book, when treating of unity of confusion in subjects.