philosophize, would call or think it nothing but a cat or a parrot: and say, the one was a dull irrational man, and the other a very intelligent rational parrot. A relation we have in an author of great note is sufficient to countenance the supposition of a rational parrot. His words are *:

"I had a mind to know from prince Maurice's own "mouth the account of a common, but much credited story, that I heard so often from many others, of "an old parrot he had in Brasil during his government there, that spoke, and asked, and answered common questions like a reasonable creature: so that "those of his train there generally concluded it to be witchery or possession; and one of his chaplains, who "lived long afterwards in Holland, would never from "that time endure a parrot, but said, they all had a "devil in them. I had heard many particulars of this

66

story, and assevered by people hard to be discredited, "which made me ask prince Maurice what there was "of it. He said, with his usual plainness and dryness "in talk, there was something true, but a great deal "false of what had been reported. I desired to know "of him what there was of the first? He told me short "and coldly, that he had heard of such an old parrot "when he had been at Brazil; and though he believed

66

nothing of it, and it was a good way off, yet he had "so much curiosity as to send for it: that it was a very great and a very old one, and when it came first "into the room where the prince was, with a great many Dutchmen about him, it said presently, What a company of white men are here! They asked it "what it thought that man was, pointing to the prince? "It answered, some general or other; when they brought it close to him, he asked it, † D'ou venez

57

* Memoirs of what passed in Christendom from 1672 to 1679, p. 3. + Whence come ye? It answered from Marinnan. The Prince, To whom do you belong? The Parrot, To a Portuguese. Prince, What do you there? Parrot, I look after the chickens. The prince laughed, and said, You look after the chickens? The parrot answered, Yes, 1, and I know well enough how to do it.

<< Vous ? It answered, De Marinnan. The prince, A qui estes vous? The parrot, A un Portugais. Prince, "Que fais tu la? Parrot, Je garde les poulles. The I prince laughed, and said, Vous gardez les poulles? "The parrot answered, Oui moi, & je scai bien faire; "and made the chuck four or five times that people "use use to make to chickens when they call them. I set "down the words of this worthy dialogue in French, just as prince Maurice said them to me. I asked "him in what language the parrot spoke, and he said, "in Brasilian; I asked whether he understood Bra"silian; he said, no, but he had taken care to have two interpreters by him, the one a Dutchman that spoke "Brasilian, and the other a Brasilian that spoke "Dutch; that he asked them separately and privately, " and both of them agreed in telling him just the same "thing that the parrot had said. I could not but tell "this odd story, because it is so much out of the way, "and from the first hand, and what may pass for a good

one; for I dare say this prince at least believed him"self in all he told me, having ever passed for a very "honest and pious man: I leave it to naturalists to "reason, and to other men to believe, as they please

upon it; however, it is not, perhaps, amiss to relieve "or enliven a busy scene sometimes with such digres"sions, whether to the purpose or no."

Same man.

I have taken care that the reader should have the story at large in the author's own words, because he seems to me not to have thought it incredible; for it cannot be imagined that so able a man as he, who had sufficiency enough to warrant all the testimonies he gives of himself, should take so much pains, in a place where it had nothing to do, to pin so close not only on a man whom he mentions as his friend, but on a prince in whom he acknowledges very great honesty and piety, a story which if he himself thought incredible, he could not but also think ridiculous. The prince, it is plain, who vouches this story, and our author, who relates it from him, both of them call this talker a parrot; and I ask any one else, who thinks such a story fit to be told, whether if

E2

this

this parrot, and all of its kind, had always talked, as we have a prince's word for it this one did, whether, I say, they would not have passed for a race of rational animals; but yet whether for all that they would have been allowed to be men, and not parrots? For I presume it is not the idea of a thinking or rational being alone that makes the idea of a man in most people's sense, but of a body, so and so shaped, joined to it: and if that be the idea of a man, the same sucessive body not shifted all at once, must, as well as the same immaterial spirit, go to the making of the same man.

Personal identity.

§. 9. This being premised, to find wherein personal identity consists, we must consider what person stands for which, I think, is a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness which is inseparable from thinking, and as it seems to me essential to it: it being impossible for any one to perceive, without perceiving that he does perceive. When we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, meditate, or will any thing, we know that we do so. Thus it is always as to our present sensations and perceptions; and by this every one is to himself that which he calls self; it not being considered in this case whether the same self be continued in the same or divers substances. For since consciousness always accompanies thinking, and it is that which makes every one to be what he calls seif, and thereby distinguishes himself from all other thinking things; in this alone consists personal identity, i. e. the sameness of a rational being: and as far as this consciousness can be extended backwards to any past action or thought, so far reaches the identity of that person; it is the same self now it was then; and it is by the same self with this present one that now reflects on it, that that action was done.

Consciousness makes personal identity.

§. 10. But it is farther inquired, whether it be the same identical substance? This few would think they had reason to doubt of, if these perceptions, with their

con

consciousness, always remained present in the mind, whereby the same thinking thing would be always consciously present, and, as would be thought, evidently the same to itself. But that which seems to make thedifficulty is this, that this consciousness being intert rupted always by forgetfulness, there being no momen of our lives wherein we have the whole train of all our past actions before our eyes in one view, but even the best memories losing the sight of one part whilst they are viewing another and we sometimes, and that the greatest part of our lives, not reflecting on our past selves, being intent on our present thoughts, and in sound sleep having no thoughts at all, or at least none with that consciousness which remarks our waking thoughts I say, in all these cases, our consciousness being interrupted, and we losing the sight of our past selves, doubts are raised whether we are the same thinking thing, i. e. the same substance or no. Which, however reasonable or unreasonable, concerns not personal identity at all: the question being, what makes the same person, and not whether it be the same identical substance, which always thinks in the same person; which in this case matters not at all: different substances, by the same consciousness, (where they do partake in it) being united into one person, as well as different bodies by the same life are united into one animal, whose identity is preserved, in that change of substances, by the unity of one continued life. For it being the same consciousness that makes a man be himself to himself, personal identity depends on that only, whether it be annexed solely to one individual substance, or can be continued in a succession of several substances. For as far as any intelligent being can repeat the idea of any past action with the same consciousness it had of it at first, and with the same consciousness it has of any present action; so far it is the same personal self. For it is by the consciousness it has of its present thoughts and actions, that it is self to itself now, and so will be the same self, as far as the same consciousness can extend to actions past or to come; and would be by distance of time, or change of substance, no more two E 3 persons,

persons, than a man be two men by wearing other cloaths to-day than he did yesterday with a long or a short sleep between the same consciousness uniting those distant actions into the same person, whatever substances contributed to their production.

§. 11. That this is so, we have some Personal kind of evidence in our very bodies, all identity inchange of whose particles, whilst vitally united to this substances. same thinking conscious self, so that we feel when they are touched, and are affected by, and conscious of good or harm that happens to them, are a part of ourselves; i. e. of our thinking conscious self. Thus the limbs of his body are to every one a part of himself: he sympathizes and is concerned for them. Cut off an hand, and thereby separate it from that consciousness he had of its heat, cold, and other affections, and it is then no longer a part of that which is himself, any more than the remotest part of matter. Thus we see the substance, whereof personal self consisted at one time, may be varied at another, without the change of personal identity; there being no question about the same person, though the limbs, which but now were a part of it, be cut off.

§. 12. But the question is, "whether if the same "substance which thinks, be changed, it can be the same person; or, remaining the same, it can be dif"ferent persons?"

66

Whether in

substances.

And to this I answer, first, This can be the change of no question at all to those who place thinking thought in a purely material animal constitution, void of an immaterial substance. For whether their supposition be true or no, it is plain they conceive personal identity preserved in something else than identity of substance; as animal identity is preserved in identity of life, and not of substance. And therefore those who place thinking in an immaterial substance only, before they can come to deal with these men, must show why personal identity cannot be preserved in the change of immaterial substances, or variety of particular immaterial substances, as well as animal identity is preserved in the change of material

substances,