To express what a man conceives is the end of writing; and every reader ought to be satisfied when he sees an author speak of a subject according to the light he has about it, so far as to think him a clear writer.
When therefore any writer speaks obscurely, either about God or any other idea of his mind, the defect is in him. For why did he write before he had a meaning, or before he was able to express to others what he meant? Is it not unpardonable for a man to cant who pretends to teach?
These general reflections may be confirmed by matter of fact from the writings of the most celebrated dogmatical authors.
When such great men as Gassendus, Cartesius,[1] Cudworth, Locke, Bayle, Sir Isaac Newton and M. de Fontenelle treat of the most profound questions in metaphysics, mathematics, and other parts of philosophy; they by handling them as far as their clear and distinct ideas reached, have written with no less perspicuity to their proper readers, than other authors have done about historical matters, and upon the plainest and most common subjects.
On the other side, when authors, who in other respects are equal to the foregoing, treat of any subjects further than they have clear and distinct ideas; they do, and cannot but write to as little purpose, and take as absurd pains, as the most ignorant authors do, who treat of any subject under a total ignorance, or a confused knowledge of it. There are so many examples of these latter occurring to every reader; and there are such frequent complaints of men’s venturing beyond their ability in several questions, that I need not name particular authors, and may fairly avoid the odium of censuring any one. But having met with a passage concerning the ingenious Father Malebranche in the Letters of Mr. Bayle, who
- ↑ Gassendius is the Latin form of Gassendi, name of an eminent astronomer and philosopher, born in 1592. Cartesius is of course the great Descartes.—G.W.F.
